If I wanted to write something completely new, I'd write a paper, not a blog post. After all, blogging is ultimately about organizing my thoughts on topics that are already known.

In that sense, my personal problem is that no one visits my homepage (www.makonea.com). Ultimately, I think conveying thoughts on such topics also depends to some extent on reputation.

I also see this when people present studies online which say something like "Eating fast food causes obesity" and you get people replying "well obviously".

On the face of it things might sound obvious, but the study or in the case of blogging the discussion actually attempts to get the to the bottom of why that might be the case.

I have a simple blog if anyone is interested: https://landenlove.com/

Granny says one can't benefit from the experience of others. Not entirely accurate but she has a point.

Some "obvious" things come with experience, sometimes it's the opposite: beginner's luck.

I really constantly have to fight the urge to NOT say/write something because it might be obvious or someone might have said it before.

Just say it.

I recently gave a talk about lessons learned in the past, and it felt really awkward, like, "who am I to tell people what to do?". A few days later, a student walked up to me and thanked me for it, because he adopted a practice I had suggested and thought it was useful. And I had troubles sleeping before the talk because I kept thinking about how plainly obvious it was going to be.

I started blogging again when I discovered that indeed, even if it's only me who finds this useful, it makes sense to write about it. As an exercise in writing, or in case there's at least ONE person on the internet who finds it useful.

Isn’t it similar to “Just be yourself”? But first you need all the hard work to get to that level so that you can just be yourself. What is obvious to me may have come as a lot of experience and focus in the past.

I avoid substack because of this. It's totally fine to email people about new posts, but at least let me read your post first. Make me interested. I'll follow you not because one good post (maybe if it's really good) but because several good ones. If your post is good I'll go look at others before leaving. If it looks good, then, and ONLY then will I subscribe.

But I can tell you there's a strong correlation between why you're writing a post and why I'll subscribe. If you're trying to hustle I don't give a shit. You're most likely another pseudo intellectual chasing whatever is hot. What I, personally, want is the experts. I want to see that depth of knowledge. I want to see how you think. I want to read a blog post where I get to know you, not some facade. Not everything needs to be a hustle. Find your niche and your niche will stick with you. If you try to write to everybody you'll end up writing to nobody. Concentrate on making me want to subscribe, not pestering me into it. You're not a used car salesman

Another good idea for posts, is instead of arguing* on the internet you can post your opinion as post. This will help you to structure your opinion, validate it, and may come handy if you will have argument again:) Also arguments usually happen on popular topics, which can bring attention to your blog.

* Of course I mean professional arguments, not political opinions or other 4chan stuff

Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1053/

There's ten thousand people new people each day, and someone has to be the first time they run into something :)

A blog can say some things a “real” media outlet can’t. How could The New York Times rail against enshittification when it is a poster child?