I didn't particularly love this article. I felt the techniques were annoying, and the overuse of boldface got on my nerves. But aside from that, a point mentioned about Nielsen really didn't sit well with me. The comment about blogs--
"Such postings are good for generating controversy and short-term traffic, and they're definitely easier to write. But they don't build sustainable value."

I don't quite understand the need for blogs to be sustainable. Sure, some think blogs are serious business now and then, but most people I know just blog for fun, and if they get a few comments here and there, they're rather happy about that.

I run my own blog, and I have a fairly dedicated readership, along with the occasional passer-by that will comment from time to time but never again. This is partly due to the fact that a third party reviews blog posts under my particular topic and is a massive hub of blog post reviews on similar topics, so I'm always getting readers pointed in from there.

But I blog for fun, to get my ideas out there. If someone reads it, fantastic, but I'm not going out of my way to make sure that everyone who comes across it will have the visual motivation to read the entire article. I'd rather not sacrifice quality when the only objective is to get more readers who probably won't even comment anyway.