A few months ago, I requested to have this blog reviewed at a site devoted to reviewing blogs, in the interest of getting some honest feedback and improving it. (Note: if you don’t like profanity, you will not be fond of this site, beginning with the URL.) The review got posted today, and seems generally more positive than most of the reviews on the site, so I’m pretty happy with it. (I’m also getting a lot of hits from readers of that site – welcome!) If you’re a regular reader, you might find the review interesting; and if you have any taste for philosophical puns, you should definitely check out the comments on the review.
But I would also like to hear readers’ opinions on a couple of the reviewer’s comments. First, (s?)he notes that the blog is difficult for a lay reader to follow. This is a balance I knew would be hard to strike from the beginning. I wanted to make it complex enough that professional philosophers and religionists would find it valuable, but also simple enough that a nonspecialist audience could follow along. I’m wondering if I’ve pitched it a bit too far in the first direction. What do you think? Should I try to simplify future posts more than I have been?
Second – and this is more for those of you who read the blog at the site, rather than by email or in an RSS reader – the reviewer hates the white-on-black look of the blog. The reviewer thinks that, while this might be pretty to look at at first glance, it creates eyestrain after one tries to read the site for long period of time. I am hoping to make some changes to the blog’s workings in the not-so-distant future, and this could be among them. But what do you think? Does the white on black work, or not?
I think the content and the tone you strike is ideal — inviting to beginners but still interesting to specialists. I’d be surprised if many people, and especially those who would be generally inclined to seek out an intellectually-minded blog like this, were put off in such a way that could be rectified by simplifying your posts. Plus, I for one would miss some of the rich detail if you were to take a different approach!
Lurker here! I am not a professional philosopher, though I am probably more educated than your average bear. I find your writing very easy to follow (and enjoyable too). I don’t always immediately follow why the questions are the right ones but I think that’s a lot of what professionalization in a field is (and it’s something we readers can absorb over time) so I don’t think that’s a bug, it’s probably a feature.
very pretty at first site, but very very hard on the focused eyes. will revisit and read more when font/colours are changed :) good luck with this!
Amod,
I have received almost precisely the same feedback re. the light type on dark background on my own blog; this from a reader who was very well-versed in philosophy and so I was confident that the strain was purely physical, not mental strain transferred to the eyes, so to speak. I toned my typeface color down to lessen the contrast, but I am still considering changing it entirely.
As to the specialism issue– I think you’ve got that balance about as well as one can hope to. You’re discussions are never jargon-laden, you provide plenty of explanatory links (and better yet, cross-link withiin the blog itself). I wonder whether any philosophy blog is likely to win over thousands of readers, but you are doing a fine job respecting your audience’s intelligence and not scaring them off right off the bat.
As a lay reader (my background is in math and linguistics), I have no trouble following your blog, so I’d say you have a good balance
Dear Amod,
I think the whole point is: what do you want to achieve? What is your targeted audience? As you know, I like your blog, but I sometimes miss viewpoints coming from South Asian philosophy–since there are many excellent philosophical sites specialised in *just* Western philosophy. Long story short: I don’t think you can satisfy everyone. And I would not even recommend it, since a too large audience usually scaries newcomers from posting comments. In order to engage in a real philosophical dialogue, you need a relatively small group of people reading and discussing your posts –the one you, in fact, have.
As for the dark backgroud, I agree with the reviewer, but I do not think that this should be the only criterion. A dark background is relatively unusual and hence it is easier to recall in which blog one has read something one vaguely remembers.
Dear Amod,
I think the whole point is: what do you want to achieve? What is your targeted audience? As you know, I like your blog, but I sometimes miss viewpoints coming from South Asian philosophy–since there are many excellent philosophical sites specialised in *just* Western philosophy. Long story short: I don’t think you can satisf
A black or charcoal grey background is only an advantage if you’re posting a lot of photos. Otherwise, go with white.
The curious thing is that his own blog is invisible in Opera author view except for the urls. I change over to user view to read you and the review (+ skholiast) I vote with my eyes. In terms of content you have a nice blend of the personal and the general philosophical, pitched at a decent level. Keep her going, don’t stall the digger.
I’m putting in myself in the “lay reader who has never had substantial trouble following the content” bucket with others!
No opinion on the color scheme, honestly. I suppose I might develop one if I tried to read a whole bunch of posts in one sitting (as the reviewer and a new reader might), but reading a couple pages a week it makes no difference to me.
For what it’s worth, I am not suggesting that you change your tone, unless your intent is to cast a wider net.
The light text on dark background is hard on those with astigmatism, like me.
I think the level at which you write is fine. You provide links to concepts for people to read more if they are unfamiliar with a topic and you do explain complex topics very well. So I wouldn’t worry about that side of things.
I’m not sure what s/he means by ‘hard to follow.’ The blog, unlike some perhaps, moves widely amongst topics of interest to you. I don’t read every post because some of it is of little interest to me. I don’t think that makes it hard to follow though.
As for white text on black, I heard about similar problems from people when these were my colors. I think most of us will agree that it is nicest aesthetically, but for some it’s too much eye strain. I don’t think the aesthetic sacrifice of moving to dark text on a light background will cost you any readers – whereas keeping it as is might.
I thought you’d never ask: yes, white on black is a bit of a pain to read. Nothing else to add, the blog is excellent as it is.
Thanks to everyone for your comments about this, including those who emailed their replies to me. Special thanks to those who are not regular commenters on the blog – it’s great to know who’s out there, and what they think.
It sounds like the effect of the white on black is indeed more negative than positive overall. I agree with Elisa that it gives the blog a certain distinctiveness, but that’s probably not worth the reading difficulties that it does appear to cause a significant number of people. (Incidentally, I have astigmatism myself, but never had a problem with white on black. Then again, I used DOS computers for most of my formative years, so maybe it’s just about what I’m used to.)
Re the level of the blog, I’m glad to hear a lot of people think it’s about right. I agree with Tom that I wouldn’t want to sacrifice depth and detail to reach a wider audience. On the other hand… I am inclined to think that I could make the same content more accessible by writing the prose more skillfully. I did tend to find that the ability to write in clear, simple, graceful terms tended to get beaten out of me every day in grad school – there was no reward for writing in an elegant and accessible way, and every reward for bloated prose that expressed my ideas precisely but was dry and put off new users. I’m going to try watching my writing style in the next couple months, see if there are ways to make it more inviting without sacrificing the ideas.