[HN Gopher] Show HN: Brevity 500 - Short games to help you becom... ___________________________________________________________________ Show HN: Brevity 500 - Short games to help you become a powerful writer Hi folks, I've been experimenting with ways to teach people how to write better for a few years. During this time, I've worked in finance, sales, and software -- and everywhere I went, most people didn't write effectively, even when their job depended on it! Learning how to become a better writer is generally not fun...books, lectures, and videos are passive and boring and tedious. Getting feedback from real people is generally most effective, but difficult and time-consuming. Brevity 500 is my attempt at creating a learning experience that is active, engaging, and NOT tedious. It offers static human-generated advice along with real human feedback for paid users. So far, in early testing, the games seem to appeal most to marketers and salespeople, but as a technical writer and developer myself, I think these games can help anyone build a strong foundation to become better at any kind of non-fiction writing. Try it out and let me know what you think! Author : moksha256 Score : 105 points Date : 2022-06-29 15:48 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (brevity500.com) (TXT) w3m dump (brevity500.com) | xwdv wrote: | Maybe there could be something similar but for coding. | forgotpwd16 wrote: | Kinda like LeetCode but instead you're given some code and | asked to refactor it, then the system checks whether the code | continues perform the same function? | wellthisisgreat wrote: | Hey looks really interesting. What do you think is the | applicability of this to fiction writing? | | Also what's HN's opinion of tools like ProwritingAid, Grammarly? | moksha256 wrote: | > What do you think is the applicability of this to fiction | writing? | | Possibly. Knowing how to be terse and how to be meandering is a | valuable skill in itself. In the business world, a long winding | approach can be helpful to take the spotlight _off_ of | something. In the fiction world, maybe you could use long- | winded dialogue to establish a particular personality for a | character. | spoonjim wrote: | I think the fact that this doesn't evaluate your prose is a | major plus. Grammarly is OK if you don't speak English very | well and need someone to tell you what to do. But these are | exercises for fluent writers to get better, and they are not | going to want their writing evaluated by a bot. | UmYeahNo wrote: | Calling these exercises "Games" is a stretch. | | Also: Extra points if your good at memorizing a list of arbitrary | words that must be included, and you're a good touch typist. In | these "games" Hunt-and-peck is a penalty, regardless if how | facile you are at editing. | moksha256 wrote: | The required terms are viewable in a pop-in that shows if you | click the "i" icon in the bottom-left corner during gameplay. | er4hn wrote: | When trying it out to see if there is any automated sentiment | analysis, I noticed that my line of "a" just stretches endlessly | out and breaks the text box. Anyways, does HN want to offer | feedback on the first game involving explaining an issue to Mr. | Smith about his ACME engine part? I was so concise that I | couldn't submit without adding some screaming noises to get my | word count up. | | (also, this was valid, so no - there is no sentiment analysis or | anything similar to see if you still got the message across) | | === Smith you dummy, your engine is BROKE. Ford will not bow to | pressure. Your warranty is as good as an anvil from ACME in a | loony toon cartoon. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa | aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa | aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa | aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa | aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa | aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa | aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa | === | O__________O wrote: | Sentiment analysis has to do detection and classification of | opinions, emotions, etc. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentiment_analysis | | Believe concept you're looking for is semantic similarity: | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_similarity | thimkerbell wrote: | Mobile phone offers noplace to edit the original text. What am I | doing wrong? | moksha256 wrote: | I tried to make it responsive because I knew a lot of people | would visit the site on their phone. In my testing, gameplay | works on mobile... _without_ an on-screen keyboard. When that | keyboard pops up on the screen, there isn 't much room for | anything else. | | If you think it's something other than your on-screen keyboard | that's messing it up, feel free to link a screenshot and tell | me your device, browser, etc so I can look into it. | thimkerbell wrote: | I see no on-screen keyboard. I cannot get one to appear. How | should I be typing, without one? | moksha256 wrote: | I'm not sure why a mobile phone wouldn't show an on-screen | keyboard with a textarea in focus. Doesn't sound like an | issue with Brevity 500. | | The site is visually designed to be responsive but it's | really designed to be used with a non-mobile screen and a | real keyboard. | thimkerbell wrote: | Android 11, in Chrome. And in Firefox. Options offered | (in place of any keyboard) are Copy, Search, Select All, | and Share. | | Well, it's a lovely thought. Maybe someone can make one | that works on mobile phones. | entwife wrote: | I'm using the same setup. There were several pages to | click through before the timed text editing challenge. | Two pages showed the text to edit in a static form before | the timed challenge. | thimkerbell wrote: | And the prize goes to entwife, I mistook the preliminary | text display for the one we were supposed to edit. | | Thank you. | entwife wrote: | This is a nice start, and succinct writing is a valuable skill. | For a serious student of writing, the automated feedback is | insufficient. Human feedback would be most useful. Designing | automated feedback would be tricky, because the rewritten text | must both be grammatically correct and have the same message. | | FYI, There is a sentence simplification exercise inside of the | larger app "Elevate Brain Training" on the Google Play app store | for Android. | moksha256 wrote: | > Human feedback would be most useful. | | Yes, the games without a paid membership are fun but not really | a learning tool. Paying users can get real human feedback | whenever they like. | elefantastisch wrote: | Conceptually, I really like this. Congratulations on getting it | out there, and thank you for sharing. | | The implementation confuses me though. | | It's not clear at first that all "games" (though I would think | it's rounds of a single game, not distinct games) are available | rather than this being some kind of daily challenge. | | The instructions are very drawn out and repetitive. There's no | reason the Welcome, Background, and Rules couldn't be on one | screen. The Mission page should just be merged with Rules. | | The time limit seems pointless given that you get to see the text | before the game starts. You could just write your text in Notepad | using as much time as you want. I would either get rid of the | timer (greatly preferred) or stop showing the text in advance (if | you must). | | It's not clear what other rules (AI?) are being used to judge | whether a response is valid, so when you get marked invalid even | though you're using all the required terms, it's not clear what | you're supposed to do to make it valid. | | It would be nice to be able to review the Background section of | the instructions while writing. | | After completion, you see your response compared to a target, but | you can't see the original anymore to compare target vs original | to see how the target improved on the original. | moksha256 wrote: | Thanks for the thoughtful feedback. | | Yeah, the time limit doesn't serve much of a purpose beyond | creating some playful pressure. | | > It's not clear what other rules (AI?) are being used to judge | whether a response is valid, so when you get marked invalid | even though you're using all the required terms, it's not clear | what you're supposed to do to make it valid. | | > It would be nice to be able to review the Background section | of the instructions while writing. | | > After completion, you see your response compared to a target, | but you can't see the original anymore to compare target vs | original to see how the target improved on the original. | | These are all good points that I will work on. | JamesBarney wrote: | Very cool app, but just wanted to agree with OP that I wasn't | a huge fan of the timer. Writing is an anxiety provoking | activity for most people, and adding a timer can make it more | so ( or at least it did for me). | Peritract wrote: | I don't agree with equating brevity and quality. | | There's a definite trend in marketing/business communication to | cut everything down to the bare bones and call that quality. At | best though, this is an over-simplification. Not every piece of | writing has the same purpose, and the current fashion for brevity | _aims_ at clarity but often hits stilted instead. | moksha256 wrote: | Yes, I've addressed this point here: | | https://brevity500.com/thoughts/why-only-brevity/ | | In short, brevity is a surprisingly excellent heuristic for | writing quality. It can provide a quick and objective metric, | which is handy for an online game meant to provide an engaging | learning experience. Note that brevity on Brevity 500 is | relative to a human-derived metric, which makes the conciseness | you're aiming for more meaningful. | | But yes -- shorter is not always better, certainly, which is | why paid users are encouraged to reach out for human feedback. | Peritract wrote: | That is an excellent response, thank you. | tomgp wrote: | surprisingly excellent | [deleted] | throwjabah wrote: | moksha256 wrote: | From what I've seen, many corporate fuckwits could use a dose | of brevity. They tend to cloak their message in verbose | jargon instead of just making their point boldly and clearly. | csallen wrote: | Cool! I love educational games and think they should be created | more often. | | Small bit of feedback that might be helpful: set a max width for | your website. Currently it stretches to 100% width, but nobody | really wants to write or read anything much wider than 800px, no | matter how wide their browser window is. | moksha256 wrote: | Thank you sir! I try to limit text to a maximum width where | needed, but can look into making the whole site a little less | wide too. | csallen wrote: | This is how it appears on my screen: | https://i.imgur.com/oWBfOxU.png (no max width) | moksha256 wrote: | Oh geez, that is terrible. None of my screens are that huge | so I never got close to testing anything like that. I'll | work on it! | moksha256 wrote: | Just pushed an update that limits width to 1000px, | appreciate the suggestion. Took longer than it should have | because my CSS is shitty :P | infogulch wrote: | Fun project, thanks for sharing! | hammerbrostime wrote: | Fun! Unfortunately, this leans into the fact that I tend to be | brief-to-a--fault. | moksha256 wrote: | > brief-to-a--fault | | Not sure if intentional, but either way, well done! | Krasnol wrote: | If anyone needs ideas to write fiction, they should try RimWorld. | | Stories write themselves. | | https://rimworldgame.com/ | jedberg wrote: | I hit go and the first thing I saw was: "This game will challenge | you to write well and write fast." | | People write quickly. :). Normally I wouldn't nitpick that, but | since your whole site is about making better writers, I | immediately have a trust issue if you can't use adverbs | correctly. | moksha256 wrote: | Sometimes I break grammar rules for effect...in that case, I | like the rhythm of the single-syllable words "write well and | write fast" better than "write well and write quickly". | | But you're totally correct. Maybe that's not the best place to | flex rule-breaking :D | jedberg wrote: | Nothing wrong with a little rule breaking! But you have to | establish trust first, so yeah, maybe not best to do it first | thing. :) | fourthark wrote: | A nit: introduction seems to say that the required words or | phrases will still be available during the game, but I didn't see | any highlighting and had to remember. (Firefox) | | Generally, judging validity just by whether a few phrases were | kept seems pretty loose. I know, it would take incredible AI and | might be completely subjective to decide whether the meaning is | still there. But I didn't like that it seemed I could completely | mangle the text and it would say great job as long as it was | short and still had those phrases. | moksha256 wrote: | > but I didn't see any highlighting and had to remember | | Did you click the info icon in the bottom-left? That should | show the required terms. | | > But I didn't like that it seemed I could completely mangle | the text and it would say great job as long as it was short and | still had those phrases. | | Yeah my algorithm for determining spam and/or bad attempts | isn't very advanced. I intend the site to help teach brevity to | people who already know English well, so while it might be nice | for the game to detect mangled text, it's not really a | priority. I suppose people who want the functionality could use | one of the automated writing assistant browser extensions for | now. | | One could "cheat" by submitting mangled text for amazing | scores, but that would defeat the purpose of the game and be a | waste of time :) | reifyx wrote: | I think both the idea and execution are great. These games would | be useful even just as problem statements. I like that each | problem clearly defines the desired tone and goals, and that the | sample solutions have explanations. | | Both in technical and creative writing, I agree that the main | issue I've seen is unnecessary filler words, needlessly | complicated sentences, and a difficulty clearly expressing the | point and staying on-topic. | | Some ideas - A copy of the original text with highlighted words | above the editor might be nice - Not sure if the timer is | helpful, might cause people to do a poor job for fear of running | out of time. Could start without a timer and add it in as users | get more practice | moksha256 wrote: | Thanks for the feedback! | | If you click the "i" button in the bottom-left during a game, | you'll see the original text with required terms highlighted. | Lots of people seem to miss that so I need to figure out a way | to make it more clear. | | In early testing, people seemed to enjoy the challenge the | timer provides. But yeah to be honest, I personally don't like | it...I'm a slow writer and hate to be rushed. Paid users can | disable the timer. | throwjabah wrote: | Personally I think this is a useless tool. Writing ability isn't | so easily trained like muscle memory and this website does not | handle tone, style, or describe how to use grammar as a tool as | opposed to it acting as a governance over your writing. | | The people you're talking about do not actually need to write | well. The assumption is that the reader is capable of handling | better writing and thus if the writing is better, the reading | will be also. That's not the case, not merely because improving | writing often doesn't improve the experience of reading, but also | because most people don't have extensive reading capabilities. | | We test students entering college on their reading comprehension, | and in general we only require them to understand approximately | 60-70% of what they read. This means that 30-40% of what most | people write is pointless crap that can go in the trash. Some | idiots who aren't considered confident in their intellectual | abilities might scoff at this assessment, but unless I am reading | and writing for an audience that also is capable of understanding | the expression, then it is pointless to attempt expressing more. | | That's why I believe you noticed that most people don't do well | in reading/writing... it's simply not a skill most have and it | also is not overly meaningful that is the case. Why paint for the | blind? | moksha256 wrote: | > Writing ability isn't so easily trained like muscle memory | | Writing is improved through practice. That's why there will be | 500 games. | | > this website does not handle tone, style, or describe how to | use grammar as a tool as opposed to it acting as a governance | over your writing | | Guidance on tone and style is provided, and paid users get | lessons that go over techniques to achieve desired tone and | style. | | > The people you're talking about do not actually need to write | well. | | Not sure what you're talking about...my experiences are first- | hand accounts. | | > in general we only require them to understand approximately | 60-70% of what they read | | Right, so if the underlying material had less crap in it, | people would get more out of the time they spent reading it. | | > That's why I believe you noticed that most people don't do | well in reading/writing... it's simply not a skill most have | and it also is not overly meaningful that is the case. Why | paint for the blind? | | Most people cannot speak well in front of an audience either. | Does that mean public speaking is not worth learning? Learn how | to write well if you want, or don't...it's up to you to | determine if it's worthwhile or not. | | There are others who don't share your opinion who may gain a | lot from this site. | kareemm wrote: | Don't worry about the haters. The throwaway's response is | verging on trolling and isn't worthy of your concern. | | I was impressed by your project and will consider paying down | the road. I think an app like yours plus human feedback is a | killer combo to help people learn to write better. This kind | of writing isn't even really about writing - it's about self- | editing. | | Good stuff! | moksha256 wrote: | Thanks! Yeah exactly -- I actually believe that one of the | most fundamental issues with traditional writing | instruction is that it focuses on writing _tips_ , which | are mostly useless because everyone's first draft of | anything is always bad. | | Writing instruction should instead focus on writing | _faults_ so that people know how to actually improve | whatever they initially wrote down. | | I discuss that notion more here: | | https://brevity500.com/about/ | | Part of the reason I went public this early was that I | wanted to work directly with people to provide them | feedback on their own writing samples. That will help me | better understand this site's users, but there's a selfish | motive also: it will help me gather writing samples to use | for the next ~490 games that need to be built. | | All that to say -- I don't mention it on the site, but for | the near-term, everyone who signs up will get pretty | personalized attention and feedback. | throwndajakajd wrote: | This is how you write and you want users to PAY for this? Are | you taking a page from Blizzard and making an out of season | April fools joke? | | Edit: " Writing is improved through practice. That's why | there will be 500 games." See you're wrong about this. | Writing is improved much the same way that personality is. | And being a funny dick can win more points than being kind | and boring. | Shared404 wrote: | Wow. | | Congrats, you landed an even bigger egg on your face. | | OP, congrats on your progress. This looks interesting, and | has the potential to help a lot of people. | | Mr. Throwaway, do you have nothing better to do with your | life? | Miraste wrote: | If the aim of professional writing is to communicate your | ideas and convince your audience of their value, and we | accept HN votes as a proxy... | | you may want to sign up for GP's course. | GiorgioG wrote: | You created a throwaway account to shit on someone else's | efforts. You knew it was wrong, otherwise you wouldn't have | created a new account. Just move along if you have nothing of | value add to the discussion. | chrisdbanks wrote: | When I was writing full-time, we had strict word limits. It | meant we spent a lot of time removing unnecessary words. My | writing skill improved immensely because of this "training". | Writing is a skill like any other. It can be trained. The | problem most people have is that they don't know how to train | it. | | I think this tool is an excellent start. As you point out there | are other skills in writing, but maybe this tool is just the | start of a suite (or gym) of tools to help people become better | writers. I applaud the creator's efforts to help people. | | As I recall, most of the texts in reading comprehension tests | are so badly written that it's amazing anyone can understand | even 70% of them. Are you saying that because people can't | understand difficult texts, people shouldn't bother trying to | write clearly and concisely? | [deleted] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-06-29 23:00 UTC)