If you're old enough to remember when the web was called the Information Highway, you may recall a site called Suck.com. It was an irreverent daily zine (remember those?) launched in the summer of 1995 with the irresistible inscription, "a fish, a barrel, and a smoking gun."

Yet what I recall appreciating most about Suck was not its wit or originality, but something only a bona fide ink-stained wretch would notice: Its use of hyperlinks.

You see, for a Luddite who once literally pasted together "takes"--newspaper lingo for typewritten pages of a story--before sending them off to the typesetting pool at the L.A. Times, all this online stuff was quite liberating. Hyperlinks were a game-changer for reasons of perspective, structure, emphasis, and even ethics.

Suck, however, couldn't be bothered with such mundane considerations. It capitalized on linking for a very different purpose, to enhance its writing with a devastating combination of humor and sarcasm.

My favorite example of this understated practice was what I call the "punchline link." Case in point:

"Every day, we confront the strange brew of dread and anticipation that comes with sifting through the drift and drivel that's dumped into our mailboxes. The keepers, generally hand-scrawled hate mail, or the occasional scrap from a prison paramour, are as easy to spot as the garbage, which usually bears Ed McMahon's countenance like a royal crest."

If you followed the lone  link in this paean to junk mail, you saw that it pointed to the erstwhile Sharper Image. To me, Suck was the original master of this art.

Unfortunately, even in their relatively short lifespan, such clever and elegant use of hyperlinks is all but lost. Rather, they have become buried in the universal junkyard that passes for writing today. Worse still, they are forced into syntactic prostitution as advertised keywords.

There is a reason for this nostalgia, other than just the self-indulgence of middle age. It serves as a reminder of why this medium is so powerful for prose--and why we, with our Prussian writing objectives, feel compelled to infect others with our unhealthy obsession on points such as these:

• Context. For old-school journalists who insist on such nuisances as supporting their claims, hyperlinking is a perfect way to divulge the direct source of public information without spending time rewriting background material. It's good for readers too: Those who are already familiar with a topic aren't subjected to extraneous explanation, and those who want to know more can drill down through the linkage to their heart's content.
• Depth. For even moderately prolific writers, linking is an ideal way to strut your stuff. An archive of, say, 50 stories will produce a surprising number of opportunities to link back to previous articles in your database. This serves the dual purpose of providing context while underscoring your authority. (A third reason is ancillary traffic to your blog or site, but that's not the point here.)
• Impact. Links are like martinis. Served at appropriate intervals, they lubricate the pace of conversation as well as its participants. Neither, therefore, should be abused: If you overdo it--the links, that is--they will lose their effectiveness and, depending on one's browser settings, make the body of your text look like it has some kind of pigment disease. Remember, graphical disruptions are just as bad as verbal ones.
• Reference. Not long ago there was a debate in certain journo-wonky circles over the use of "retro" or "pop" terms and citations in stories. The complaint was that such references alienated younger and/or overseas readers who didn't grow up in the same culture as the aging and/or insensitive writer. My coward's solution: Use hyperlinks liberally. Not only does it forgive our literati indulgences (sort of), but it also dares to educate the uninitiated.
• Writing. As Suck shows, links adds a dimension of communication that is impossible to achieve in a book, newspaper, magazine, or other static medium, at least with such economy. (Like this.) Here, it is the equivalent of a visual but unspoken action, like the stand-up comic who feigns modesty by begging the audience to stop their applause while discreetly gesturing to keep it up.

Now for the bad news. Depending on how important posterity is to your work, you may want to be especially circumspect in your choice of linking destinations. Because Suck's archives are the equivalent of stone tablets in Internet years, most of their best links are dead.

And that, appropriately enough, really does suck.

Larry Ingrassia, the business editor of the New York Times, recently quoted two opening paragraphs from front-page stories on 1987's "Black Monday" in response to a reader's question.

The first was from Gray Lady herself: "Stock market prices plunged in a tumultuous wave of selling yesterday, giving Wall Street its worst day in history and raising fears of a recession." (Whew.)

The second was from the Wall Street Journal: "The stock market crashed yesterday." (Perfect.)

'Black Monday,' 1987

To appreciate the concision of the latter, some context is in order. On Oct. 19, 1987, journalists everywhere were glued to their TV sets, watching the financial carnage unfold (including yours truly, at the Washington Bureau of the L.A. Times). By the time the Dow had plummeted 22 percent at the closing bell, reporters were falling over themselves to capture the enormity of the history they had just witnessed.

What resulted were "leads" (newspaper lingo for first paragraphs) that were larded with all manner of verbiage and hyperbole--except the Journal's, which said so much with so little.

Therein lies our writing lesson for the day: Less is more. And nowhere is that truer in blogs, where 500 words is considered Tolstoy.

As Andrew wrote the other day, there's already more than enough noise in the echo chamber as it is. To make a worthy contribution, therefore, it means you need to be a ruthless editor of your own copy. So below are a few points to consider on that score.

• Short isn't superficial. The most effective sentences need few qualifiers or "hedging." That's because they're often written by people who can write and speak authoritatively in simple declarative sentences on the subjects at hand. Keep your adjectives and adverbs to a minimum so that, when you do use them, they have maximum effect; otherwise they'll just dilute the point.
• Overthinking is a sin. Over the years in various newsrooms, I've developed an "80/20 rule" while supervising editors who have a tendency to go overboard in rewriting their reporters' work. If you've accomplished 80 percent of what you want in a story, I'd tell them, let the other 20 percent go--you'll be the only one who will notice the difference. The same is true for your blogging.
• Restraint is a virtue. One of my first editors once told me that almost any news stories longer than 10 column inches (about 400 words) are essentially padded. That number is debatable, of course, but it's still a good idea to draw a horizontal line somewhere on your Word page or whatever software you use as a red zone that warns when you're approaching un-bloglike lengths. This will train you to "think shorter" and, eventually, help limit your research beforehand so you don't end up with more material than you need.

A Mozart concerto and a Barry Bonds swing have one thing in common: They both seem effortless yet are deceptively complex. That's the ultimate achievement in writing as well--beauty in simplicity.

By the way, those Ingrassia quotes came on the 10th page of his online piece in the Times. I happened to come upon it quite by accident in researching that Journal story to make sure I quoted it correctly.

Please don't make your readers wade through anywhere near that much stuff.

Mike and I had a rather pointed discussion the other day about a New York Times piece on Silicon Valley PR that raised hackles throughout the industry.

I felt that we needed to add our voice to the conversation, as the blogs and feeds were afire over it. Mike countered that there were too many posts on the subject already and, lapsing into his curmudgeonly city-editor persona, asked bluntly: What would we write that others haven't said first?

I continued my argument but, after relentless interrogation, basically admitted that my main motivation to join the fray was for traffic.

As Guhmshoo, I had successfully piggybacked on other controversies (such as Amazon's recent "glitch") that drove a fair amount of clicks my way. But in those cases, I offered something unique: a cartoon. This time it would just be another echo in the bat cave.

The web is noisy enough as it is, and if you want to be a responsible content creator--shouldn't we all?--you must learn how and when to exercise restraint. Or, as we like to call it, "Newsvetting." To wit, here are a few practices we recommend:

• Add new factual information rather than just an opinion or a rehashing of existing arguments. Examples: new data, a fresh angle, corrections, clarifications, and, the most elusive contribution of all, possible solutions.
• Write as quickly as possible to avoid the rapid decay of Internet time. Even a strong post loses value with every Tweet that goes by and risks being trumped by another blogger while you waste time thinking Great Thoughts.
• Get yourself an editor (professional or otherwise) to play devil's advocate as you state your case for writing about a particular topic. If you have a hard time justifying your position, it's probably time to step away from the keyboard.
• If you feel that you are doing your readership a huge disservice by not reporting on this topic (not likely), consider sharing the top articles on your distribution channels (e.g., Twitter, FriendFeed).

Many of you may find these guidelines too restrictive. But if your blog is part of your profession, you need to start thinking of it as more than a self-indulgent hobby. Rather, you should run it like a serious news property or not at all. Even if you do manage to snag a few page views with a clever headline, those readers aren't likely to return once they realize that you're not adding anything of substance to the issue at hand.

Remember that relevance, credibility, and timeliness are three basic criteria for every post. Be honest and ask yourself if your ideas meet these tests on every post--before you start to write.

A lot of what I've encountered in more than 25 years as a news editor and reporter will seem obvious, boring, or even cliched to those in the business. But Andrew is always reminding me that this blog, and Newsvetter in general, is not directed at other journalists.

To that end, those of you who are not accustomed to writing for the public should know a few things before deciding to bare your soul. Although we have encouraged companies and individuals to write blogs, it's also important to know why reporters are supposed to be thick-skinned:

• Feedback will be negative. An old axiom in the news business is that people only bother to write letters to the editor or post comments when they're upset; the vast majority might actually agree with you, but it's human nature to complain far more than we praise. Even for those of us who occasionally write letters commending the service of a waiter or a salesperson, we're probably far more likely to complain if we do anything at all.
• You will offend people. And you may not even be aware of it, let alone know what you did to provoke them. Readers are funny that way--there are a lot of angry people out there, and many will take it out on you. One of the downsides of instant publishing is spontaneity; a lot of people simply don't have filters.
• Some will try to discredit you. At newspapers, critics accused us of being beholden to advertisers; on the web, they said we couldn't objectively cover the digital medium because we were a part of it. Needless to say, a corporate blog or other content enterprise that's part of a business (like this one) is especially vulnerable.

Now this isn't to say that the world is full of hate and that you should just go live in a secluded cabin, Ted Kaczynski-style. This post is just intended to note the less pleasant side of becoming your own news outlet.

Besides, if you want to have impact, you'll inevitably tick off some people along the way. Another newsroom saying is that, if those on all sides of an issue are upset with what you've written, it means that you've probably done a good job telling a story right down the middle.

The best writers, whether journalists or essayists, will attempt to make their articles "bulletproof." That often means disarming potential criticism by acknowledging up front anything that can be used against you, from affiliations and personal relationships to means of support--that old transparency thing.

Beyond that, just be prepared to take your lumps and move on. In her surrealistic ramblings, Sarah Palin did manage to make one lucid observation: "Your enemies won't believe you anyway."

She's right.

When building a website or blog, remember these two words: instant gratification.

Your website should be a place where people can ask questions or run searches and get quick answers. When I had a question about how to make some custom modifications to Newsvetter's Wordpress theme (Thesis), for example, I turned to the user forum for answers.

Bingo. In most cases, the question had already been asked and answered, so I was able to get the information I needed within seconds from the archive--or, for all the geeks out there, the "knowledge base." And if that didn't work, I could post my query on the Thesis forum and have an answer within a day.

What makes this efficient system even more impressive is that the answers were simple and easy to implement, even though I know next to nothing about things like HTML and CSS. Best of all, these expert Samaritans gave me what I needed with no strings attached. If you can replicate this model of "information altruism" on your site or blog, you will quickly draw a steady and loyal stream of readers.

Thesis, of course, has the benefit of drawing on a seemingly endless well of skilled and experienced contributors in its community. But just like you, it had to start somewhere. So here are some tips on building your way toward a living library of resources:

• Make sure that your site content addresses specific points directly. There's a reason that people love "how to" posts.
• Don't post and forget. Know what you've already written and link new content with the old. By linking prolifically to previous related posts, you will show depth and institutional knowledge, as well as multiple tiers of sophistication that can cater to each reader's level.
• Make your content easy to find. Organize your site by subject matter rather than simply by archives that sort only by date. Try to limit these categories to 10 or fewer. An overabundance of categories defeats the purpose and will deter readers from searching.
• Assume your readers (like me) don't know squat about your subject matter. If you find that some questions are simply too rudimentary and time-consuming to address, at least tell me where I can learn the basics. With any luck, you'll be able to link to helpful material somewhere in your burgeoning archives.
• Organize your site with common sense and free of clutter, with impatient readers in mind. Ask yourself: Do I really need that Flash widget or Java ticker in the right sidebar? Does it truly provide something valuable for most readers, or is it just a distraction?
• Keep it short and simple. Try and keep the majority of your posts to under 500 words (better if it's between 300-400 words). And that doesn't mean you can break them into Parts I-III.
• Before you write, think about what the headline should say. There's an old copy-editing rule that, if you can't figure out what the headline should say after reading the story, then there's probably something wrong with the writing. This will help avoid that conundrum.

Don't worry if you don't nail down all these points on the first try. Your site is a perennial work in progress, constantly evolving to follow the dynamic nature of the medium.

You can also make use of various analytical tools, many of them free, to learn what people are clicking on (or not) and figure out why. Remember, the beauty of this medium is that you can always change your site--and should.

Any time that a five-paragraph post draws 127 responses and 125 tweets, it's probably safe to say that it touched a nerve--especially when the comments are overwhelmingly positive.

"When people talk about the 'Death of Public Relations,' it doesn’t bother me at all," Todd Defren wrote on PR-Squared. "I know what they are talking about. They are talking about the death of MEDIA RELATIONS."

He's right, of course, as are many others who have expressed similar sentiment. Yet a fundamental question often goes unanswered, if addressed at all: What will take its place? While journalism pundits engage in their habitual hand-wringing, corporations are already becoming their own news outlets.

In the absence of any universal standards, even poorly constructed company site might easily be confused with an independent media organization if stripped of its logos. PC.com, for example, is an Intel-run destination that probably could pass for a tech news outlet to the novice consumer. And in spite of its virtually impenetrable navigation, Microsoft's various sub-sites still have loads of content that consumers and developers seek out on a daily or even hourly basis.

Which raises an issue that typically sends mainstream journalists into apoplectic fits: As long as information is deemed credible and useful, people really don't care where they find it or who wrote it. That point, in its logical continuum, makes the case for companies and individuals to create their own content sites and use the Twitters of the world as their virtual counterparts to newspaper delivery trucks.

But as Valeria Maltoni cautions in Social Media Today, be careful what you wish for. Although I firmly believe that blogging can be a competitive game-changer for many businesses, it's got to be done right or shouldn't be done at all.

There are many specific tips we can list for a successful blog, but it really comes down to timeliness and relevance, with a dash of entertainment--just like the news business, in any form of media. Why? Because you want to show potential customers and clients how smart you are. Simple as that.

Lest you think blogging is just another entry on your to-do list, however, consider the following:

• You need to write constantly, preferably posting every day. One thing that hasn't changed since Web 1.0 is that you get only one chance: If someone comes to your site for the first time and thinks it's stale, you've lost that person forever. And if you don't show you're current on industry trends, what does that say about your business?
• You must stay on top of what else is being said out there, and that means poring through as many substantive sources as you can find. Only then can you write as an authority. (When I created CNET's gadget blog Crave in 2006, I scanned more than 100 blogs and sites every day in writing more than 3,000 posts in 18 months.)
• You are but one of a zillion voices, so you've got to be engaging. Don't be afraid to show some personality, especially if you feel strongly about your convictions. There's a reason that a frightening number of people count Jon Stewart as their primary source of news. At the same time, don't be an indulgent writer and waste people's time by taking too long to get to the point.

Now, what's the best way to do all this? Again, think of it like a news operation. In addition to doing your research by reading as much as you can find, talk to others at your company. Schedule weekly or semi-weekly meetings to brainstorm for topics to address. You'll find that these will have a valuable byproduct of generating enthusiasm.

Then come up with a list of "story ideas," which will also help start the writing process. Just pretend you're a cub reporter who needs to pitch assignments to a grizzled old city editor. You don't even need to worry about getting thrown out a window like the old days.

I don't know Paul Boag, but he is my hero. Apparently others think so too, judging by almost all of the 358 comments posted in response to his widely read article in Smashing magazine earlier this year, "10 Harsh Truths About Corporate Websites." So fair warning: I will be referring back to this piece repeatedly to add my observations (and validate my opinions).

Boag was referring to company sites, but nearly all his criticisms can apply to news outlets as well. One struck me in particular, as it's long been a pet peeve of mine: "6. Your Website Is Not All About You."

The narcissism is abundant in daily newspapers, which report ad nauseam about the disruption of their industry. Call it the Al Franken school news judgment: Whatever happens to Me is obviously of paramount important to the rest of the universe. The reader comments posted on these stories, by the way, are either negative or indifferent.

It is the ultimate cautionary tale for companies and individuals as they become their own media outlets in the post-newspaper era. Always approach your information as a reader or a consumer, and preferably both. Don't get caught up in the same myopic and self-indulgent world view that is killing much of mainstream media.

That means seeking out criticism and actually listening to it, rather than talking to a bunch of like-minded people or, if your workplace is like most corporate settings, people who are afraid to voice dissenting opinions. This is not to say you need to spend a lot of time and money on "focus groups" whose members are often less than candid about their likes and dislikes because they want to look smart or worldly.

An old boss of mine had a simple rule about writing headlines: Would you, as a reader, click on the one you just wrote? Simple, but humblingly effective.

Just talk to people who might visit your site, especially those who have never seen it before and don't know what you're trying to do. You'll be amazed at what you'll learn.

I read a really excellent interview in the Bulldog Reporter with Will Csaklos, a story consultant and former senior creative executive at Pixar. Over his career he has worked on such films as “Finding Nemo,” “Cars,” and “Ratatouille.” In the interview, Csaklos was asked what PR professionals could learn from people who pitch stories to movie execs. It’s a great interview and worth reading from beginning to end. Here are a couple excerpts that I found noteworthy:

• My advice to PR people … is to think of and position your company or client’s story in framework of change and evolution. That’s what people, reporters included, respond to emotionally. Essential to that are obstacles.
• You can’t just share or pitch the high points. Nobody wants to hear about the village of happy, smiley people. They don’t want to hear about the CEO who inherited $50 million. They want to hear about someone who rose to the challenge.
• PR people may find themselves pitching stories they don’t believe in–I’ve heard that happens. My advice is that you have to find something compelling or it’s not worth doing. Try again. Push back on the client to find the angle or idea you can get passionate about or don’t do it.
• If you can’t boil your company or client’s idea or product into a one-sentence logline that is simple and compelling, you’re not going to get any traction outside of [the client].
• Think of the audience first. Not yourself. You have to connect. You do that with authenticity, and by conveying a real knowledge and passion for the story. Infect others with it.