I used to get 12 to 15 comments or more on my blog posts.

Then, I was silent for 3 months.

When  I returned to blogging this month, I got only 3 to 5 comments per post.

You can make the case that my lack of blogging for months diminished my readership.

And that’s the problem with blogging.

To maintain the recommended frequency of posts, bloggers write blog articles even if they have nothing to say.

And the result is drivel. As Willy Nelson says, “You can’t make a record if you ain’t got nothing to say.”

What happens when I have no news, information, or thoughts to impart?

Should I blog for the sake of keeping up with blogging?

Or should I be silent until a worthy idea occurs?

In an online ad to protest anti-piracy laws pending in congress, Wikepedia says, “Imagine a world without free knowledge.”

But should ALL knowledge be free?

Do you expect the attendant at  your local gas station to fill your car for free?

Do you expect your doctor to treat  you for free?

Do you expect the plumber to fix your leaky faucet for free?

A mantra you hear on the Internet is “information wants to be free.”

Does that mean those who create content are entitled to no rewards from it … and are expected to work for free?

What do  you think?

It was while working as a technical writer for Westinghouse in 1979 that I first heard the term “word smith” applied to writing.

“He’s a pretty good word smith,” my internal client said, referring to an engineer I was supposed to interview for writing a brochure; the engineer felt a mere writer couldn’t understand the subject and it would be better if he wrote it himself.

Now a relatively new term — content — further degrades writers and the status of writing.

“Writing” sounds like a craft or skill. “Content” sounds like something you buy by the can or by the pound.

I am seeing an ad in a lot of places on the web for “Writer Access,” an organization that promises to help you “get your content written.” They match you with a writer from a pool of thousands, again commoditizing the practice of writing.

The only ways for writers to avoid being a commodity:  (1) write a best-seller (2) write in a specific niche in which you are perceived as an expert and (3) write direct response copy where results can be measured.

While I don’t use a professional proofreader for my blogging, I do  use one for nearly all other writing, including copy for clients, articles, and books.

When a proofreader is not someone you use, then you lose.

Example: a digest mailing from Preston James promises the reader will learn about a special web site on page 73.

But the digest is only 71 pages long!

Once a large accounting firm had me in to train their managers in writing. “Be sure to emphasize proofreading,” the client told me. Why? The cover of a proposal to a major account referred to the firm as “certified pubic accountants.”

My favorite thing about this time of year is the continuous play of horror movies on cable stations.

In no particular order, here are my top 10. How do yours compare?

1. 30 Days of Night.

2. Night of the Living Dead.

3. Halloween.

4. Friday the 13th.

5. Nightmare on Elm Street.

6. Dracula Has Risen from the Grave.

7. Frankenstein.

8. The Wolf Man (original).

9. Quarantine.

10. Creature from the Black Lagoon.

More and more these days I see marketers buying “articles by the pound” for their web sites.

By that I mean they go to the cheapest source, buy a bucket load of short articles packed with their key words, and post them on their web sites in an effort to raise their search engine rankings.

Two things they seem not to care about are (1) the quality of the writing and (2) the actual content of the articles (other than key words).

But those two things are important. Why?

As far as (1) is concerned, people judge you by the words you use. If your writing is inadequate, they assume you are inadequate, too.

For (2), search engine optimizers forget that prospects — not necessarily the bulk of visitors, but serious prospects — actually READ  your articles for the information they contain and to see if you know what you are talking about.

I was just contacted today by an entrepreneur who told me, “I read many of the articles posted on your site, and you demonstrate an understanding of the market we are trying to reach that I have seen no where else.” And he wants to hire me to consult with him.

This is a reaction you do not get when you buy and post generic, keyword-loaded articles by the bushel. So don’t.

In the forthcoming motion picture Real Steel, human prizefighters are replaced by boxing robots.

This fate may be reality, not science fiction, for writers.

A company called Narrative Science (www.narrativescience.com) claims their technology can “transform data into high-quality editorial content … without human authoring or editing.”

If it’s true, this is bad news for freelance writers who produce articles and other content. These writers could be replaced by a machine.

I say “if” it’s true because the Narrative Science web site offers not one iota of proof that they can do as they claim. There are no videos, demos, white papers, webinars, testimonials, case studies, or explanations of how their software allegedly writes content.

Without proof, I am highly skeptical. But if Narrative Science has actually done it, some content writers may be forced to find a new way to make a living.

The other day, one of my online subscribers, CR, complained about the e-mail marketing of a famous Internet marketer.

 “I unsubscribed from his list,” she told me haughtily. “As soon as I joined, I got e-mails from him once or twice every day – and there’s no one I or anyone else needs to hear from that much.”

 That begs the question: how frequently can you e-mail your online subscribers?

 Or: how much e-mail is too much?

 People have lots of opinions about this issue, which they support with arguments that are both passionate and logical.

 The problem is: their opinions are wholly subjective.

 The fact is: there’s an easy way to objectively and accurately determine the optimal e-mail frequency for your online subscribers.

 How does it work?

 Well, every time you send another e-mail blast to your list, a small portion of your subscribers will opt out of your list.

 Why?

 They decide that your content is no longer of value to them … or you are doing too much selling … or they don’t like your style … or you are e-mailing them too often.

 The “opt-out rate” is a Web metric that you can measure: the percentage of online subscribers who unsubscribe from your list per e-mail blast.

 A 0.1% opt-out rate means that if you have 10,000 online subscribers, 10 unsubscribed after getting your most recent e-mail.

 When your opt-out rate is around 0.1% or less, you can rest assured that you are not sending too many e-mails to your list too often.

 If you were, the opt-out rate would be higher.

 On the other hand, when your opt-out rate gets much above 0.2 to 0.4%, you are losing subscribers at too rapid a rate.

 For instance, if you have 10,000 subscribers and an opt-out rate of 1%, you lose 100 subscribers every time you send an e-mail to your list.

 You should measure and keep track of your opt-out rates with every e-mail you send.

 Adjust your e-mail frequency, ratio of sales pitches to content, message length, and topics until your opt-out rate hovers around 0.1% to 0.2% or less.

 Now, watch what happens if you increase the e-mail frequency – for instance, go from one e-mail per week to two e-mails per week.

 If you get a sharp upward spike in the opt-out rate – double or more – your subscribers are telling you they don’t want to hear from you that often.

 And you should probably eliminate the extra e-mail.

 On the other hand, if you add an extra e-mail per week and the opt-out rate does not rise significantly, you are safe in continuing at the higher frequency.

 But should you?

 Yes.

 We have lots of preconceived notions about what our market wants — and doesn’t want.

 And one of these preconceived notions is that people don’t want too much e-mail.

 But when the opt-out rate is low, your subscribers are telling you they DO want to hear from you often via e-mail.

 That’s important, because the more times you can reach out to your list with a valuable offer or content, the more money you make online.

 My colleague Amy Africa, a top consultant in B2B e-marketing, says that one of the most common online marketing mistakes is not e-mailing your list frequently enough.

 And by making that mistake, you are leaving money on the table.