| 4:30 pm on Aug 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Depends on the subject area, the target site and how much effort you are putting into it.
A blog article would usually be churned off without the need for research or proof-reading.
However, an article for distribution or a corporate website may take a much longer time, sometimes going through several review processes.
I could probably write an OK 1000 word article in under an hour, assuming it was on a subject I was at least vaguely familiar with. But if I had to write a good article or even a great article, it would take a lot longer.
| 4:57 pm on Aug 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
yeah, I've found that I pound out a reasonably good article, say 2,000 words, in a few hours. If I revisit that article a few days later and spend another hour on it, I can turn it into a "great" article.
| 5:26 pm on Aug 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Probably, I'll be the slowest writer to answer this.
I can do a 600+ word article on a tech subject I'm familiar with in approx 4 hours. That's with plenty of stops to fact check and rewrites as required.
| 11:16 pm on Aug 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|How much time would you consider "normal" to write a single article for the web? That leads directly to the question of what is "normal"? |
There is no such thing as 'normal'. Many writers have taken years and years to complete their one book - their oeuvre!
What's the rush in putting a quality article together that will benefit your site in the longer term?
There is a difference between 'churn' and quality :-)
| 11:44 pm on Aug 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|There is a difference between 'churn' and quality |
Agreed. I find that I have a lot to say, a heck of a lot of things in this universe that I find interesting and want to share. So I have no shortage of things to write about, and my thoughts flow from my soul to my fingers very fast.
I also believe that a writer writes, just as a painter paints and a webmaster, well, webmasters. And if he isn't doing it, or is doing it so slowly that it is hard to see progress, than he really isn't it, is he? I believe that someone who takes years to write a novel, assuming that is all of the writing he did, isn't really a writer. He is a dilettante.
| 11:04 am on Aug 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"I believe that someone who takes years to write a novel, assuming that is all of the writing he did, isn't really a writer. He is a dilettante."
That means many of what our culture considers major writers were dilettantes. One of my favorite writers was known to make 200 drafts of a story only a few pages long. He himself made jokes about his slowness. He was the head of the writers' union in his country for some years, and the powers that were considered him so influential a writer that they took him out in the middle of the night and shot him. That's not usually the fate of a dilettante.
I am pretty slow compared to other people on this thread. I spend a lot of time researching what I write, and I consider that time writing time. It is not unusual for me to spend four hours researching what turns into 200-400 words. For me, most of writing is preparation, and the rest is editing.
| 12:01 pm on Aug 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have taken 6 months to write my next one, and itís not done yet. Of course it is about the auto industries recalls, and if you are going to point fingers at multinational companies, you better have your facts straight. It takes time to gather evidence and connect the dots. Sometimes involving experiments that also take time and researching additional links to include.
| 12:25 pm on Aug 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|And if he isn't doing it, or is doing it so slowly that it is hard to see progress, than he really isn't it, is he? |
How do you judge progress? The speed of lightning or the building of mountains? ;-)