Guide [Editorials] Gaining Popularity In the AWS

[Quarks 2,255]

Welp, "constructive" criticism time. The main thing is that you left your thesis in the dust after the first section. After that, it became a guide on writing different types of articles. Gaining popularity is something that isn't really talked about and this had the chance to be something really special focusing on that. There were plenty of ways to go with that idea, from writing style, personality, series, titles.

 

The way to become popular is to create a product worth consuming (reading, in this case) that is unique and distinctly you. Something that sets you apart from the troglodytes that read your work. I had my "Science Behind" series and deep look into old maps, Hog had his humor, Gold had his text walls, NS had a ton of personality in her writing, and the list goes on.

 

I think that this deserves a more focused sequel, and to do that, I'd recommend going into the archives and digging around there, and figure out why each of them became reporters and are as iconic as they are. That would make a truly special article.

[Person_Random 4,991]

Welp, "constructive" criticism time. The main thing is that you left your thesis in the dust after the first section. After that, it became a guide on writing different types of articles. Gaining popularity is something that isn't really talked about and this had the chance to be something really special focusing on that. There were plenty of ways to go with that idea, from writing style, personality, series, titles.

 

The way to become popular is to create a product worth consuming (reading, in this case) that is unique and distinctly you. Something that sets you apart from the troglodytes that read your work. I had my "Science Behind" series and deep look into old maps, Hog had his humor, Gold had his text walls, NS had a ton of personality in her writing, and the list goes on.

 

I think that this deserves a more focused sequel, and to do that, I'd recommend going into the archives and digging around there, and figure out why each of them became reporters and are as iconic as they are. That would make a truly special article.

Hey, thanks for the critique!  This was a bit older, so I think I should have polished it a bit before.  Wow, you are psychic!  How did you know I'd make a sequel?

[percy67 0]

Noice job Radnom!

[ZloyDanuJI 409]

Welp, "constructive" criticism time. The main thing is that you left your thesis in the dust after the first section. After that, it became a guide on writing different types of articles. Gaining popularity is something that isn't really talked about and this had the chance to be something really special focusing on that. There were plenty of ways to go with that idea, from writing style, personality, series, titles.

 

The way to become popular is to create a product worth consuming (reading, in this case) that is unique and distinctly you. Something that sets you apart from the troglodytes that read your work. I had my "Science Behind" series and deep look into old maps, Hog had his humor, Gold had his text walls, NS had a ton of personality in her writing, and the list goes on.

 

I think that this deserves a more focused sequel, and to do that, I'd recommend going into the archives and digging around there, and figure out why each of them became reporters and are as iconic as they are. That would make a truly special article.

criticism on your criticism... I don't think that being unique necessarily makes you popular. It might make you recognizable but not necessarily in a good way. like in your case.

[Person_Random 4,991]

criticism on your criticism... I don't think that being unique necessarily makes you popular. It might make you recognizable but not necessarily in a good way. like in your case.

I wouldn't say if you are so unique that you stray off your topic it would be good, but if you have an easygoing style that is easily recognized by people, it makes you stand out.  I think that is what he means.

[Quarks 2,255]

criticism on your criticism... I don't think that being unique necessarily makes you popular. It might make you recognizable but not necessarily in a good way. like in your case.

That is true, but it also makes you more recognizable. In order to be popular, you need to stand out from the others. If you can't stand out from others, it is hard to remember, and thus harder to be popular.

 

 

I wouldn't say if you are so unique that you stray off your topic it would be good, but if you have an easygoing style that is easily recognized by people, it makes you stand out.  I think that is what he means.

Kind of what I mean, but uniqueness does not mean going off topic, it is adding your own flair to something. Whether that is humor, use of juxtaposition, etc.   

[r_Given6 859]

juxtaposition

On first glance, I thought it was written 'just a position'. XD Edited April 20, 2019 by Given

[ILiveOnTheChatBox123 936]

Pretty good. I liked it. +++