Quantity or Quality?

By | May 22, 2009 | 15 Comments

As for today, we usually don’t publish articles which have a small inpact in web browsers market. Latest example would be: Opera reaches 20% market share in Antarctica.

However, as this web site is all about the news and information, I am considering to increase a number of articles per day (quantity over quality). If you have few minutes of your spare time, please vote and let me know what you think.

Would you like to see more articles?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

About (Author Profile)

Vygantas is a former web designer whose projects are used by companies such as AMD, NVIDIA and departed Westood Studios. Being passionate about software, Vygantas began his journalism career back in 2007 when he founded FavBrowser.com. Having said that, he is also an adrenaline junkie who enjoys good books, fitness activities and Forex trading.

Comments (15)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Grrblt says:

    I prefer the way it is. Small articles like that can go into the “here’s 10 links for you” posts you make.

    However, what I would like to see, is a better formatted RSS item for those posts. They currently only include text (no links) without linebreaks. If they were links on separate lines, I could actually read them :)

  2. Morghus says:

    If it’s interesting, I’ll read it. Not sure what else to tell you :)

  3. andresruiz says:

    I prefer quality over quantity, few people like to visit a web site full of irrelevant information, I like the way it is now.

  4. Post with 2-3 lines of text?! Come one… I suggest even longer posts but not too long.

  5. Tiago Sá says:

    It all depends on what you want to make of this site. If you want a place that people visit to read opinions and discussions, then go for quality over quantity, if you want a place what people visit to read news, then the other way around does it.

    All in all, I’m happy the way it is now.

  6. Foo says:

    Perhaps you should just set up a Twitter account? Should be easy enough and you won’t have to pollute your blog feed.
    Btw, you should do away with the current three feeds and replace it with a single one. There’s no reason in the world to have all three…

    (Feeds work perfectly fine in Google Reader btw.)

  7. Judging by the likes of LifeHacker, once the quantity is the main focus its impossible to find the worthwhile from the crap. Feeds become a chore to read etc. Why not meet half way and extend some of your posts.

  8. You mean write longer ones?

    Such as:

    After 3 months of hard development and bug testing, Mozilla today has finally released Firefox 3.5 web browser, a successor of Firefox 3. One of the key features in the following release is JavaScript performance which was drastically improved to better compete against Safari and Chrome web browsers.

    instead of:

    Mozilla today has released a Firefox 3.5 web browser. The following release improves JavaScript performance and …


    If so, is there really any point of that? It doesn’t change the fact, right? Just wastes more time (you will still know the same info, besides what text you decide to read, nothing more/less).

  9. No more along the lines of supplementary info.

    Throw in when the first release was, roughly how many changes have been committed since the last stable release, give us an idea of why/how its improved (maybe a new JS engine etc). Things like that.

    Although fleshing it out isn’t really a bad thing as long as its not words for the sake of words. In your example the addition of drastically is important. 000.1ms on a benchmark is an improvement, suggesting a drastic/noticeable improvement actually tells us to expect something more substantial. The inclusion of Chromes lets those who wouldn’t automatically know that Safari and Chrome are the current speed demons.

    Also a related posts feature isn’t a bad idea, it keeps people on the site if that’s what your after.

Leave a Reply