I just noticed the type=redirect attribute on Fargo. This may help with the problem I was musing about recently--trying to find a way to keep all the advantages of a blog's chronological organization while picking up on an outliner's advantage in organizing content around the shape of ideas.

So you blog every day about your work as it unfolds, and maybe you build an audience and some comments and collaboration--all to the good. But some of those entries make sense together outside of the timeline, in an idea-based organization like many a nonfiction book chapter. So revise a few of those posts and repost them outside the timeline, in an idea-based order.

And then maybe change the attributes on the original posts--click on the Fargo suitcase and add type=redirect as an attribute, add the URL, and send any visitor to the posting's new location. Now the content which was born in the timeline resides in the idea zone.

Is that practical? I don't know. Ideally, would I like the timeline to remain in place on my blog? Yes, probably. But somewhere in the intersection of outliner design and workflow habits I suspect there is a pretty good way organize through both chronology and ideas.

Every once in a while a social media message annoys me, and because I'm interested in what works and doesn't work on the web, I might stop and ask myself why. This recent tweet, for example, bugged me:

You probably don’t know this about Karl Marx: http://trib.in/12sfJ8S

Why was I bugged? The tweet has a bit of suspense, but I can't tell what part of Marx's life or work we are talking about here. "I know but I'm not telling you" is the writer's position. The tweet appeals to general curiosity but a reader who acted upon general curiosity at a social media site would have to click on nearly everything. Who has the time? Maybe if you are curious about Marx you'd click, but even then the promised payoff is so vague.

Would it help to know that the link leads to a review of a major publisher's new biography? Or to mention the particular surprising episode in Marx's life that is promised by this tweet? Why hold back so much? Maybe something like this would be better:

In 1861, journalist Karl Marx saw through the rhetoric of the American civil war, writing for the New York Tribune.

That leaves 24 characters for a link. I might click on that link.

Is there a principle here? Maybe this:

When it comes to moving a reader to click, there is a real difference between writing "There is something cool (or surprising or moving or horrifying or whatever) over there" and telling a reader what the link actually offers. It takes a moment to write that better, more specific tweet, but taking that time raises up the quality of the curating.

And maybe a second principle:

If you can change a word or two and reuse the message in a completely different context ("You probably don't know this about Barack Obama."), then the message is generic, not specific. Generic appeals require next to no new or specific thought on the part of the writer, and so they deliver next to no new or specific content to a reader. They are lazy or vague or disrespectful of a reader's time. A writer misses an opportunity to give something specific and useful to a reader. That's one of the most astounding opportunities of the web, which is to give away good content in order to build a relationship with others and share ideas in order to improve some corner of the world.

Unless we're just bored, to respect ourselves as readers we should probably stop clicking on social media messages that say, essentially, "Here's something. (Link)"

(Michael Robbins, "The specter of Karl Marx," Chicago Tribune, 7/5/13)