Writers Shouldn’t Assume Producing Less Content Leads to Better Quality Work
Sorry, it’s a trick question. The answer is that it’s impossible to know. Ultimately, the quality of the final result has nothing to do with the hours that were spent on production. Bad writing doesn’t become good because it took a long time to produce. If you polish a piece of mud for a hundred years, you still only end up with a piece of mud. The question of quality is a difficult one to answer. Do writers produce better work when they spend forty hours on a single project, or is it better to spend one hour each on forty individual projects? I differ from most writers in that I have a background in science. I’m a certified Physics teacher. What I learned in my advanced science classes is that it’s problematic to make decisions based on any unproven assumption. Yes, it sounds logical to think that you’ll produce better work if you invest more time. The problem is that people without a science background end up lacking the tools to understand why this is not necessarily the case. Quite often, things that sound logical are completely wrong. In this article, I’ll attempt to demonstrate why you have a better chance of producing quality if you focus on quantity.Here’s another scenario: One writer is assigned ten minutes to write an article. The second writer is given ten hours. Who writes the better article? Again, it’s impossible to tell because there are too many undetermined variables. What if the writer who gets ten minutes is Stephen King? What if the writer who gets ten hours is a high school freshman? I’m betting that Stephen King will produce the better work. Speed is the key to profitability in any industry. Last week, I did a small roofing project. It took…
0 Comments