One of the last things I would want to do is manipulate any piece of writing in a way that makes it impure, or self-mutilates in order to appease an audience who may or may not have a stronger connection with that alteration.
That said, the pieces of content on this site are structured in a literarily-unusual way, in that they’re somewhat mechanical. This has been done not to appease an audience (as described above), but rather to cater to the level of interest a reader might have in a given topic.
For example, it would be very arrogant for me to assume that others share the same interest -or same level of interest- in a particular topic as me. On a personal level, I enjoy content that allows me to scale; something that (if it’s of little interest or significance) I can breeze by, or if it’s valuable but not something I want to engage in, I can understand the basics of the content by reading a short summary. Lastly, if it’s of high value and high interest, I can dive deeper into the details.
With this in mind, the content has been structured in a way that keeps with the journalistic principle of setting the most important details first. This first part of the structure is referred to here as Quiddity. This is for someone who wants to understand the thesis or conclusion of a piece of content without having to initially skim their way through the entire experience.
Similar to the quiddity above, this second part of the structure aims to briefly explain why this piece of contact was written in the first place. That is, what was the catalyst for this piece? This might be useful in understanding the underlying why of the analysis or what the motivation was to write about the subject of interest.
Finally, the content then grows into the full analysis that most would expect. This is the intended “piece” on content.
Please feel free to leave your feedback on these writings or on the structure.