There is no shortage of content on the Internet. But how much of it is good content? And what justifies good content over bad content? The following example showcases a good example of readable online content. From i-D’s article “All The Books You Need To Read Before They Become T.V Shows or Movies in 2019” written by Christina Newland,

This article is an example of good content because it is short and easy to follow. If you’re looking for a horror book that’s turning into a movie, the section for that is easy to find and highlighted in bold lettering. Each section gives a detailed enough description of each book to give you a good idea of the story while keeping things conscience. There is not a lot of jargon except for the unnecessary two-paragraph introduction.

Bad content is easier to find than good content is and there is almost more bad content readily available than there is good. The following example is how content should not be made, courtesy of CityLab’s article, “London’s Surprisingly Rich History of Transit Textile Design” by Feargus O’Sullivan,

*WARNING! BORING RUN ON SENTENCES AHEAD!*

Does this feel surprisingly rich to you? Each paragraph runs on with boring jargon-filled sentences that leave the reader wondering when they’ll actually come across something interesting. For an article about textiles one would imagine there would be more than two photographs. Most of the article is dedicated to talking about how wonderful the London Transport’s Museum exhibit on the textiles is. If the purpose of the article was to pitch the museum exhibit, that should have been in the title and been the focus of the piece. When the article isn’t citing designers or random London tourist traps it leaves the reader wondering how such an eye catching website produced such a bone dry article.