I think this is one of Stack Exchange's great successes: persuading knowledgeable people to answer beginners' questions. There are plenty of other things going on there, too, but that's part of the success story.
I've absolutely noticed this. The only reason I write blog posts now are to (1) show off a project that I'm surprised I was capable of completing or (2) "bullshitting" about marketing because my work pays me $50 a post.<p>I would add a third explanation: Too technical for laymen, not technical enough for cutting edge experts. I sure do know a lot about my field, but the things I would write about are too complicated for beginners, and have been done before by experts. But I can definitely toss out a hypothetical and write 500 words about it once a week..
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like it's perfectly possible to be interested in something and yet still have a lot of experience in the subject matter. Lots of experts want to share their knowledge either to help the field move along a bit or to get more people interested in whatever their expertise is in.<p>The person on YouTube that makes tons of videos about the minute technical details of Super Mario 64 and talks about half button presses and parallel universes is obviously highly interested in the game and its mechanics and also has a lot of experience with it.<p>There are people whose main passion remains the same for 20+ years and who never get bored of learning more and more about the same subject till they retire or die.<p>And no, I don't think objectivity must be passionless or bore the reader. It's possible to present 'just the facts' in a way that's enjoyable to read and doesn't try and pass off any viewpoints as objective. A good nature documentary could still be interesting to watch after all.
You can be inexperienced and still be completely objective, and vice versa. Objectivity is the skill, and experience is the asset. Interest is also a separate asset. The author seems to assume we get bored and lose interest with experience, which is observable, but I think this rings truer with entertainment (games) rather than craft (art, music, programming).<p>I wish I could be more entertaining, but the truth is not that exciting. That's probably another writing paradox. Most of our entertainment is fiction.<p>(Personally, I write to think and to document. There is also no way of knowing what people think of your thoughts if you don't share them.)
That's basically why I don't have a blog. I know I would end up with a few posts and then a multi-year gap in it.<p>But I like discussions on HN. There is just enough variety and interesting mix of topics. Also the style is more conversational, while a blog is more narrative (fire-side chat vs a presentation in front of an audience).<p>There should be an "HN-post-history-to-blog-format" library or service. Maybe something that picks the most interesting discussions in last X years.
Objectivity is not only overrated, but the desire for it is part of the problem here. Objectivity must be passionless, which bores the reader.<p>It's also very hard to achieve, which is why you find people going around calling themselves "objective" when they're just refusing to acknowledge their prejudices and privileges.
I think there is some truth to this, but it isn't universally true. I have spent a lot of years trying to sort out certain things and I am finding myself blogging more these days on various topics. I remain interested in exploring and communicating about a number of different things.<p>Different strokes for different folks.
I like this author's style. I don't think he's shown that blogging is a doomed project.<p>Having interest in a topic may compromise one's objectivity. But we can become aware of this, and correct for it. Other people's viewpoints can be helpful here.<p>And having experience in a topic doesn't necessarily mean you're bored of it. I've been web-developing for ~5 years and there's a whole bunch of stuff here I want to explore and write about.<p>Regarding writing for the sake of money, Schopenhauer had some commentary:<p><a href="https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/essays/chapter1.html" rel="nofollow">https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/essays/...</a>
At work we are forced to spend some of our free time writing "commercial interesting" articles mostly of topics that doesn't say a lot to me. It's something that I (and a lot of my coworkers) dread a lot.<p>On the other hand I have my own blog where I have the freedom to write about what I want and when I want. I'm having a lot more fun when writing for the latter.<p>I also get a lot more reactions regarding articles that I write for my own so I assume that fun or interest also shows in the quality of my writings.
That's why it's a good idea to ask some experienced folks for feedback on your passionate writing before showing it to the public. The internet sentiment of "yay we don't need editors or reviewers" is certainly inspiring, but it also leads to a lot of writing that's passionate and wrong.
I think the reverse becomes true when you replace "writing" with "speaking" -- most people love to talk about things they have a lot of experience in. So the solution would be... videos and podcasts?
Two possible exceptions:<p>Posts that are intended as a launching point for critical discussion.<p>Posts that journal a learning process such as an original project.