I agree completely. We are looking for good selections and quick reads. That is the real purpose of the newsletter.
I pre-select articles based on quality and topic. I survey hundreds each day. Hopefully, I’m saving you time. Then I provide bullet summaries (which many readers love) and deeper discussions for those who want more.
Face it: there’s only so much new information in any article, no matter how good the writer is. The hardcore readers will go to the original article, but they will never represent a huge majority of our audience.
And now my mea culpa: Even with Rip’s original format of presenting four articles in their entirety, I rarely read every article word for word. I skimmed most of them.
But sometimes I did read the whole thing. And that’s why I believe the full article should always be just a click away.
As I’ve explained, copyright law prevents me from reproducing complete articles in our Substack newsletter. We’ve moved from an email-only format to a web-based one. All the editions and links to the original articles are available there.
I agree that the old approach of including everything in one long email had its advantages. But even then, I rarely read every word of every article. At best, I skimmed many of them. I suspect there are plenty of readers in the same boat.
With summaries, you can quickly decide which articles deserve more of your time. And the complete original article is always just a click away.
That’s the trade-off.
I’ve received strong feedback on both sides of this issue. So far, most readers seem to prefer the summary approach.
For me it gets down to this: how do you get the most useful information in the least amount of time?
Again, thanks for your honest feedback. I appreciate it.
It is a busy time of the year for me and I find your summaries so good, I don't feel the need to read the original article unless I have a compelling reason ( "this might very well affect me or someone I love") to do so.
The fact is that we are all inundated with politics these days, and I am close to shutting it all down. Much like The New Yorker and Atlantic, your publication comes out too often and is too lengthy, and there are only so many hours in the day.....hence the temptation to read only the summaries.....
Bill,
I agree completely. We are looking for good selections and quick reads. That is the real purpose of the newsletter.
I pre-select articles based on quality and topic. I survey hundreds each day. Hopefully, I’m saving you time. Then I provide bullet summaries (which many readers love) and deeper discussions for those who want more.
Face it: there’s only so much new information in any article, no matter how good the writer is. The hardcore readers will go to the original article, but they will never represent a huge majority of our audience.
And now my mea culpa: Even with Rip’s original format of presenting four articles in their entirety, I rarely read every article word for word. I skimmed most of them.
But sometimes I did read the whole thing. And that’s why I believe the full article should always be just a click away.
Jim
Elizabeth,
Believe it or not, that puts you in the expert class!
Congratulations.
Still plenty of mysteries to unravel here regarding subscriber behavior.
I'm just making sure that we have enough life preservers on board.
Jim
Robert,
Good feedback.
I think you are referring to the Pemster.
I have set up a new section on the site called Guest Essays.
i will be revealing this new feature soon, right after I figure out user behavior (what we are doing now).
I’ll give an email address to all who want to submit essays and go from there. Many have asked.
I think it is a great idea but must be handled carefully for all involved. We have global reach with this newsletter.
Jim
Candida,
Thanks. Most of it is fun.
Jim
Buck,
You are my model subscriber.
The secondary ones are all gems. They are the winners of over a hundred others for the day.
Nothing random here. Most people do not understand that part.
Someday I’ll explain the whole thing. You will be amazed.
I still am, three times a week!
Jim
John,
Heartfelt and delivered.
I’m not nearly as pessimistic about the midterms as most, but we shall see.
We all know the polls are useless. Their purpose seems to be to influence rather than inform.
Jim
Patricia,
I read Coffee and Covid occasionally, too.
It can be very entertaining, and he has some good insights. I include him in my extra links from time to time.
But the dude sure does take a lot of words to say what he’s trying to say!
Thanks,
Jim
Charlotte,
Good feedback.
As I’ve explained, copyright law prevents me from reproducing complete articles in our Substack newsletter. We’ve moved from an email-only format to a web-based one. All the editions and links to the original articles are available there.
I agree that the old approach of including everything in one long email had its advantages. But even then, I rarely read every word of every article. At best, I skimmed many of them. I suspect there are plenty of readers in the same boat.
With summaries, you can quickly decide which articles deserve more of your time. And the complete original article is always just a click away.
That’s the trade-off.
I’ve received strong feedback on both sides of this issue. So far, most readers seem to prefer the summary approach.
For me it gets down to this: how do you get the most useful information in the least amount of time?
Again, thanks for your honest feedback. I appreciate it.
Jim
Good feedback. Appreciated.
JHS,
I appreciate your comments.
Be sure to try out the new Text Preview! Even I think it is pretty cool stuff.
Lots going on in the background to make that work.
Plus, being only an excerpt with a link to the original, I am safe from copyright concerns.
Jim
Jordan,
Thanks. Always looking for feedback.
Jim
Al,
You are my target audience. You think like me.
Thanks for the comments.
Jim
Keep up the good work. We appreciate every days input.
Like what you've done with Rip's. News letters. Would not change anything at this time. Flexibility to go as deep as I want when I want is great.
It is a busy time of the year for me and I find your summaries so good, I don't feel the need to read the original article unless I have a compelling reason ( "this might very well affect me or someone I love") to do so.
The fact is that we are all inundated with politics these days, and I am close to shutting it all down. Much like The New Yorker and Atlantic, your publication comes out too often and is too lengthy, and there are only so many hours in the day.....hence the temptation to read only the summaries.....