Principles of good posting

I'm a throwback. I have a tough time with posted videos, unless they are really short, >3 min. I'd say. I mean, I'll say it flat out: If I'm being asked to watch 15-30 minutes of video to respond to a post, it ain't happening.

Men speak at an average o 125 words per minute, women 150 wpm, and newscasters hit 175-200 wpm. In middle school speed reading class, I hit about 1600 wpm. It's probably slower now, but I imagine I still read at 800-1000 wpm. Plus, in a written article I can skim over some stuff.

So for me it's a time thing. I can get the same info 6-8 times or more faster from a written article.

How do others feel about this?

I agree. I very rarely watch posted videos that last more than 2 minutes. Even if the obligatory "It's long, but it's worth the time" shows up.

I only watch them if they're short, or really funny, or if Ron Paul is speaking.
But, I too am a speed reader from way back. 200 pages a night is normal if I'm reading a book.

So, I'm not the only one. Now, a trickier point.

Honestly, I feel the same way about really long articles. If someone's going to post a really long article, I think it's good form for the poster to give his or her synopsis of it.

Good journalism/writing isn't very common these days. The best writers are the most concise ones, imho. Too many writers write long, like, they just like to read what they wrote ... 'course, that's the ex-journalist in me coming out ... and my very critique here applies to me. .... at times.

Maybe I'm lazy, but I don't often read really long articles.

Even though that video with Judge Andrew Napolitano was long, it was well worth watching, in my opinion.