[thirsteh]

It's a bad idea to encrypt passwords, but that's beside the point.

> If a dictionary visit is required, you've failed the audience.

If you take this to its logical conclusion, we end up in a world where English ceases to be the language of Shakespeare and more like dogespeak. No one will be morose anymore, just very sad, and no one will know what it means to be awestruck.

Someone will always need a dictionary. That shouldn't make us afraid to show that we have a vocabulary spanning more than 500 words, or that we have an education at all. God forbid we encourage others to stop talking or writing like 16-year-olds on E! TV.

[notlisted]

Ooopsie. Deleted the word 'intended'.

Write for your intended audience and not people like you/your friends (or english professor). In our international/global economy the audience often extends to non-native English speakers. Simple words on e-commerce sites generate more international sales.

PS Morose is not "very sad" :-)

[thirsteh]

You missed both of my points:

No matter your intended audience, there is always somebody who will need a dictionary. It's not shameful to look up words, and it's easier than ever to do so. You've shifted to arguing about conversion rates for non-English speakers, which is a fair, but separate point. (I'm also curious if small words and simple sentences really do translate to higher conversion rates.) I am talking about prose in general.

> PS Morose is not "very sad" :-)

Nor is awestruck "very amazed." The smaller your vocabulary is, the less you can communicate (as redblacktree pointed out, this is demonstrated quite dramatically by George Orwell's 1984, wherein the language is dumbed down so much and has so many words removed that the citizenry can't express emotions the state deems negative.)

This is the truly tragic thing about this incessant anti-intellectualism: people lose some measure of ability to express what they really mean or feel, all in the name of meeting the lowest common denominator.

(For the record, I am not a native speaker, and I love seeing words that I don't understand.)

[notlisted]

There's a difference between "somebody" needing a dictionary, and "20% of your audience".

If you write a book, go ahead and insert "fluffy" words, if they are more precise. If you write a blog post or create site copy, assume the worst and keep it simple.

(PS Neither am I, and so do I, but I admire writers like Steinbeck and Hemingway. Simple and powerful. It's actually harder, not easier.)

[vacri]

The problem is that you perceive them as 'fluffy' words. When you're used to them, they increase precision in communication.

I agree that you should write to your audience, but at the same time, don't aim for the lowest common denominator. That's a race to the bottom. Site copy for a commercial site should be pitched at your customer's level. A personal blog post should be written the way you want to write - it's your voice. It's okay to expect your audience to be of a given quality, or for them to stretch themselves a little to understand you fluently. The other thing is that the more detailed your language, the better you can write between the lines. Not every concept needs to be explained directly when writing.

Keep in mind also that the article is talking about creative writing, something people read to enjoy. Striking out tired common terms like 'very' makes your writing more unique and interesting. The article isn't about how to do copywriting, though you still wouldn't want to use 'very' all that much there, either - repetitive phrases make for bad copy.

[notlisted]

There's a difference between "somebody" needing a dictionary, and "20% of your audience".

If you write a book, go ahead and insert "fluffy" words. If you write a blog post or create site copy, assume the worst and keep it simple.

I like Steinbeck and Hemingway. Simple and powerful.

PS Neither am I.

[redblacktree]

double plus ungood!