Good, amusing or short?

Hey Kalle,

I’ve been a bit unhappy with some of my recent blog posts. (The post about Rule of Three comes to mind, took forever to write and ended up really mediocre…)

From now on, I will aim to make all my posts accomplish at least one of these three criteria to make sure that you don’t have to waste your time on crap:


This is obviously the best one. Nothing beats quality. Sadly, this doesn’t always happen, so if I can’t accomplish that, at least I should aim for…


Hey, I might not have anything interesting to say, but at least I made you smile and that kinda makes up for it, right? However, if I can’t accomplish either good or amusing, I should aim to reduce the pain of reading my crap by making it…


The less time wasted, the more time you can spend on other more important and fulfilling activities than reading bad posts by yours truly.

If these criteria are good and true, you can also make the following interesting conclusions:

If I always keep it short, any bad posts that I write will cause the least amount of discomfort for you.

The holy trinity is obviously good, amusing AND short. That hasn’t happened yet.

Tweets are rarely good in themselves (links don’t count), often amusing and always short. Is this why Twitter has been so successful compared to all those other failed blog platforms?

I’ll stop now before this becomes too long, for obvious reasons.

Enjoy your weekend!