Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

animalz.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 136 posts

Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

#31

Post by CalChris »

I naturally write in an inductive style, data+evidence followed by conclusion. And gosh darn, don't I just feel brilliant when, after I've laid out all my evidence and my deserving reader has been inevitably led to the only possible conclusion, mine, they agree with the only possible conclusion, mine. My reader is so lucky to have me as a writer.

Well, at least I was made aware of this particular conceit by some rhet profs at Berkeley. But really, anyone, myself included, who writes inductively in a professional setting should be fired for having wasted their readers' time. Luckily, HN is not a professional setting.

Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

#32

Post by sitkack »

anotherevan wrote: post #26
killjoywashere wrote: post #14

I have a boss who would treat the subject line of his emails like SMS. The body of the email is often blank. I have adopted that. It makes BLUF look slow and awkward.

I use to do this (with an "EOM" on the end) but gmail doesn't lend itself well to this.

this was a common msft corp email technique in the 90s. it worked really well

Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

#33

Post by cryptonector »

anotherevan wrote: post #27

I wish more news site articles would practice this. So many times I'm scanning the damn thing for the bottom line to decide if I want to read all the waffle or not.

Back before the Internet became users' most important news source, newspapers used to do have a hierarchical structure to their stories. The headline would tell you a fair bit, then the first paragraph or two would tell you all the salient points, and each subsequent paragraph would add details.

Now it seems that the important things are buried at the end of the article. The idea seems to be to hook you in and make you keep reading. You hope to find what you're looking for, and in the process stay longer on this page, possibly getting distracted by ads and (intrasite) links.

Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

#34

Post by anotherevan »

sitkack wrote: post #29
anotherevan wrote: post #27

I wish more news site articles would practice this. So many times I'm scanning the damn thing for the bottom line to decide if I want to read all the waffle or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism)

Yeah, I'm aware of that. I wish more journalists put it into practice though.

Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

#35

Post by [deleted] »

stebann wrote: post #24
DoreenMichele wrote: post #18

My dad was career military. So was my ex husband. This military communications standard probably goes a long ways towards explaining why people seem to either think I'm rude, crude and socially unacceptable or refreshingly direct with no BS.

I completely identify myself with this. Many people told me that I was rude because of my way I communicate in workplace. But since then, the group I'm working with got used to me and some of them have adopted this style. Sometimes we're really hurry with the schedules and continuous feedback among us has helped us to meet that schedules.

[deleted]

Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

#37

Post by dragonwriter »

jejones3141 wrote: post #21
alexjm wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to make it active requires moving the key information to the end of the sentence: "The time you spent in training last year entitles you to jump pay [for that time]." Although style guides like this one usually advise against using passive voice because it makes things harder to read, clarity should be the goal, not just active voice. This is a good example of a reason you might prefer passive voice: because t…

Perhaps "You deserve jump pay for time spent in training last year"?

That is active voice, but subtly changes the meaning. “Deserve” suggests non-binding moral qualification, “are entitled to” suggests binding legal qualification. “You earned jump pay for...” is closer.

Honestly, though, this is a case where the usual purpose of active voice rules (to avoid deenohasizing or obscuring responsibility) is not actually frustrated even though the sample is in passive voice so while I wouldn't use it as an example of active voice I wouldn't necessarily avoid it even given an avoid-passive-voice guideline. (And I've reviewed documents under publication manuals with such guidelines.)

Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

#38

Post by bakery2k »

I came across this recently, when writing a blog post about a puzzle I solved. I wasn't sure whether to structure the post "chronologically", telling a story:

    1. Here's an interesting puzzle.
    2, 3, 4, 5. These are the steps I took to solve it.
    6. Hence the solution is X.
or using BLUF:

    1. Here's an interesting puzzle.
    2. I found the solution is X.
    3, 4, 5, 6. These are the steps I took to find that solution.
I'm still not sure which structure would be the best choice in which situation. Are there any guidelines?

Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

#39

Post by sitkack »

bakery2k wrote: post #38

I came across this recently, when writing a blog post about a puzzle I solved. I wasn't sure whether to structure the post "chronologically", telling a story: 1. Here's an interesting puzzle. 2, 3, 4, 5. These are the steps I took to solve it. 6. Hence the solution is X. or using BLUF: 1. Here's an interesting puzzle. 2. I found the solution is X. 3, 4, 5, 6. These are the steps I took to find that solution. I'm stil…

Teach a person to fish. 1 maps to 2. And how it got there is [3,6]. This is absolutely (that word) the right way to go.

Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

#40

Post by sitkack »

anotherevan wrote: post #34
sitkack wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism)

Yeah, I'm aware of that. I wish more journalists put it into practice though.

It was followed in print. But ad clicks have inverted it so that we scroll through all the monetization.
Post reply on HN