Consider the film/documentary: [imdb.com...]

Lots of valid things, some to discuss and some that aren't exactly great, but it covers the great efforts nowadays to keep people interested, engaged, and it's not about content/writing, is about showing short stuff that stimulates your brain in terms of dopamine. People in general read less, are less interested on discussions or debates, just consuming short stuff, pills for the brain.

A lot of content works that way at present time: short stuff made to awake specific emotions, mostly conflictive, surprising, fails, people falling, jokes, things that involve very little use of the brain.

I am sorry to say that I notice the same things you have brought up here. I know that there are still a good number of people who read because they enjoy reading. Books still sell.

I sort of think that some key ingredient is being left out of the learning process today. It is true that you don't need to do all the research that it took time and effort to do years ago, but some people enjoy the process of researching, the why and how of the topics. They want to know those TLDR details to possess an understanding rather than just the bottom line.

I am guessing that a lot of work goes into snipping out any more than bare basics in much of the content being put out now - both to fit those bite size interest spaces and the shrinking attention span that the practice helps to cause. Seems driven by, "Why work harder than you need to?"

And yes, I see it in recent viewing options for what is supposed to be entertainment. I have seen more interesting story lines or plots in cartoons than some recent "New Hits".

I’d be happy if people would just read search snippets so I wouldn't be reduced to denying an entire subcontinent :(

I have seen more interesting story lines or plots in cartoons than some recent "New Hits".

Yes, a thousand times yes.

Way back when I thought I’d found ‘the’ solution:
* an attention grabbing title with an intriguing tease description for the SEs (then had to develop hacks to stop G from substituting !intelligent artificial brain farts).
* a ‘fascinator’ page heading restating the title, possibly extended by a subtitle.
* a lede restating the description.
* a summary utilising short paragraphs each with small eye candy images alternating left/right side of text (for the 80% aka skimmers) with links to the various ‘more reading’ sub heads further on.
All within the initial viewport.

And then, for the 20% aka readers, the body of the content with supporting imagery, links, etc.

This worked extremely well up until about five or six years ago. Since then the 80:20 has shifted to 90:10 even 95:5 for some demographics.

It’s meant some adjustment in how and ad and af link placement. Interestingly the reader portion all 20, 10, or shudder 5% of visitors continue to provide 80% of site revenue so the detailed content below the fold/summary retains its value.

What is particularly intriguing is that half the app download and use base and almost all of the audio version (a multi year project in its first year) use base are those skimmers. And it is also the skimmers who provide most of the SM shares and testimonials. Very different behaviours that offer very different benefits, both of value that can be leveraged.

Divergent Thought: there is a growing (exploding this year due to lockdown behaviour/needs changes) shift in China eCom (5% or 65billion USD last year, expecting double plus that this year) that is sucking revenue from sites. Might do a post, as it’s spreading through rest of east Asia this year. Our antiquated bank and credit card system will likely provide protection in NA and EU however it is yet another signpost in a diverging of economic systems and power.

Change in reading habits noted long ago. Snowballing in the 1980s and forming an avalanche in the decades following. The correct way to address this is by making sure the EDUCATION SYSTEM returns to past practices rather than participation trophies ... but that requires responsible adults to take more time vetting their elected officials and instruction institutions.

THAT SAID, you write for your audience at all times!

Methods noted above are all VALID and generally successful.

Where some sites have trouble is they are DETAIL and VERBOSE oriented for full measure and any form of condensation (in content to for the short attention span readers) actually REDUCES the value of the site.

You have to made decisions on how to proceed in the site mission.

@Noteasy: Books still sell.

True. There is BTW, an interesting positive response to apps and websites selling "5 minutes audio books" and also text versions. Super condensed stuff and I watched monologues vids talking about it seriously (customers-users) as if there was nothing wrong with it and being able to do something with the learned information, as most things in video: the interesting part is the comment section. So in conclusion we can talk about trends and the response of the public thinking it's ok and it's useful. I've found interesting examples of the same practice including the "we did X so you don't have to"

There is a difference between noticing such changes, feeling alarmed and even discussing "it's wrong" VS talking about the issue of how the most basic information input has changed to levels where people are not in the same page. Information input has become not just a barrier with challenges, but also another topic of addiction and emotional stimulation.

@iamlost: I experimented something as you explain here and got some results (while I don't have metrics as profound as yours). I could test and see the reaction of the readers to diff content, and I also approached first headline, intro, headline2-inside, 2nd intro, and even separating content into what looks like a short series of instagram posts. People like it. But I'm not sure there is a useful conversion there, I mean not in my cases, so ended a bit in the middle, more faithful to the old fashion content creation.

I mentioned in the past the success of long stories, then shorter with better writing, then people failing to engage on such stories. It was interesting to see people failing to understand the concepts and so they would send emails asking for information such as "nice article, but who was the flying superhero?", and in all honesty there was a headline in the form of "Superman, the flying superhero", this means; people asking the obvious. Then I removed the contact form from all the pages and moved to a button, then after insisting dumb questions I moved to the footer kinda hiden, the way is placed works like a captcha "click here is you are human and if you can actually read". It worked.


Still things have changed. Content has moved to a gray area less involved with information, and more involved with "creating emotions for the readers". People actually looking for content to get some emotional response and even some chain of jumps (addiction style). Conflictive headlines have better chances of success. We could discuss this for hours stating there are differences in readers and we should focus on the mature ones, yes, but there is something interesting here: how mature readers can also change and get hooked. The posted documentary above explains how one ex chief of monetizing realized the danger, tried to cut it but failed himself, noticing how engaged he is with constant flows of information. The information is not exactly important, is the chain of emotions, it could be garbage but it works as long as it creates some emotional response, and this brings (and explains) the many pages of instagram like content talking about top 10's, top 5's of stuff, and also the before/after shocking changes on things, dumb challenges, etc. It's even explained how people turn on their devices to see what kind of emotions they can get at the moment.

I generally keep it kind of simple:

I write what needs be written.

Users seeking that content get it AS WRITTEN.

If they appreciate it they come back for more. Else I never see them again.

While I do write for the audience, I don't dumb it down to the lowest common denominator, and never will. Satisfaction/conversion is my goal, not "how many flyby hits" I can achieve from those who will never interact.

YMMV

I consciously write the first viewport text at an age 10 to 12 (end elementary school) reading comprehension level as that optimises skim reading comprehension, however the article body itself is at a much higher age/education level, typically the high school university boundary.
Note: fundamentally this means use of polysyllabic words, lengthy complex sentences, and greater information density.

As my niche subjects are of interest to all age groups I also have sections written specifically for children. Which are by far the most difficult to get right.

I put writing well for children up there with good technical, i.e. user instructions, writing. Both, on first glance, look to be easy; in practice excruciatingly difficult. Writing for an audience of others, of which oneself is not a member, requires a mind reset: different base knowledge and experience, comprehension, expectations, etc.

When visitors come for the person the singular voice is accepted as part of the package, when they come for the information the voice is either immaterial or a hindrance, which (and how much) varying by each.

Life is a pain.
They come they leave
Perchance to return
Or not
They love me
Or not
Life is a pain.

Since 1959 I have used Robert A Heinlein's rule for writing (juvenile books).

"Treat them as adults. They appreciate it."

Simple is for slogans and "soundbytes" for the easily distracted or "emotional".

Won't be changing to suit the SM/FB crowd where pictures are more important than content.

BTW there have been some interesting analysis on music composition and video production (I guess some might already be familiar with this), turns out over recent years there is an increasing, and conscious approach on using cuts and transitions every X seconds. While the use of the technique is increasing and more evident, the value of X has been decreasing. This is also evident on film production. Films in the past had long shots, today? you can find tv shows, music videos and also films with consistent 1 or 2 seconds cuts or transitions, this means 20 seconds = 10 or more diff takes.

music composition and video production

I remember a time when I regularly watched {long-running TV series} in nightly cable reruns, meaning that you would get something like ten years’ worth of episodes in the course of a year. It was really striking how the pacing of the series picked up over time--in particular, how much faster the theme music got. It becomes especially creepy and noticeable when you see it happening at, so to speak, time-lapse speed.

Old shows are routinely subjected to "time shifting" where the video and music are "same frequency" sped up to produce another two minutes of "open space" for commercials.

TV (old days) usually ran 52 minutes to the hour. These days those same shows in syndicated re-runs now run 44-45 minutes to the hour. Some of that is quick cuts (removing long fades) and speeding up during NON-SPEAKING parts (music cues, scene shifting, etc.). Resulting is a condensed presentation where more commercial ads can be placed. Also note, over the years even commercials are being condensed so that more advertisers can be serviced!

Sadly, viewers and net users have been conditioned to this compression and as a result they expect more for less effort ... and when it comes to the WRITTEN WORD you can't "time shift" that, you can only dumb it down (less words) and that can interfere with comprehension.

Pick and chose, chose and pick. This is the current world and one can either hold to a higher standard, or bottom out to the lowest common denominator.

At present I use as many words as it takes to complete the task at hand.

YMMV

I’m not addressing tangor’s as many words as it takes to complete the task at hand as that is both true and subjective. Rather I’m just adding to my prior posts in this thread.

The summary portion leans hard to the clear, concise Sergeant Friday’s ‘just the facts, ma'am’ style, whereas the content body leans hard to the storytelling immersive emotional investment/involvement style.

Give the scanner the facts, sell the reader using the facts in context as hooks. :) Grab, hold, and take on an emotional ride, a literary roller coaster ride. A deeper fulfillment that will bring them back and have them recommending to others. Plus dive on to ads and afs.

”Will you walk into my parlor?" said the spider to the fly;
"'Tis the prettiest little parlor that ever you may spy.
The way into my parlor is up a winding stair,
And I have many curious things to show when you are there."
—-Mary Howitt, 1829

Old shows are routinely subjected to "time shifting" where the video and music are "same frequency" sped up to produce another two minutes of "open space" for commercials.

The unnerving corollary is that the difference in pacing would be even more dramatic if each episode were viewed as originally presented, since earlier episodes are now slightly speeded-up to fit into the same number of minutes as later episodes.

Remember Readers Digest Condensed Books (latterly Select Editions) abridged aka condensed versions of novels?

Well, those abominations have been digitally exceeded by apps such as Joosr Book Summaries (20 minute versions) and Blinkist (15 minutes ... or less!)

The CliffsNotes-isation of a faux literary comprehension. Let the editors do the thinking for you...

”I’m late, I’m late! For a very important date! No time to say ‘hello, goodbye,’ I’m late, I’m late, I’m late!”
—-Alice in Wonderland.

Can’t help thinking that if a nonfiction book (thinking of blinkist here) can truly be summarized in 15 spoken minutes, then perhaps it ought never to have been published at book-length in the first place.

Trivia: Before there were Cliff Notes there was the encyclopedia-sized MasterPlots. You can still find it in some large libraries.

Things are different now, people do get online to experience more emotions, the more and faster the better, and the shorter the waiting time the better.

In the past the internet was kind of exclusive, not just anyone would have access to the internet. Then some had partial or limited access, today? mostly everyone, and many access the web while working because they need a break, some air. We are competing for attention more than never before. Conversions matter, but we need to get their attention first.