If you're writing an about page on a web site, compiling a brochure or putting the finishing touches to a business proposal, don't fall into the trap of adding a lengthy company history.

It is best to avoid histories altogether. If you must have one, keep it short and either stick it at the bottom of the printed page or link to the information on another web page.

Certainly don't start the page with a history lecture.

Hardly anyone cares when or where your company started.

Too many about pages begin with something like: "In 1997, three clever guys had the idea of forming a widget business and set up shop at 101 Boring Street, Dullsville, Arizona". Yawn.

Not only does a company history bore readers, it sends a message that you are self-obsessed, maybe vain, possibly even narcissistic.

Worse, Google and other search engines will pick up on this information – particularly if it is near the top of your company about page – and regard the history as more important than the valuable information potential customers search for.

This rule doesn't apply if you are selling history. For example, if you run a café in a historic building.

Regular readers may notice this web site has reverted to its minimalist look and feel. I've switched back for two reasons.

First, I wanted to cut down on the size of my pages – this format is quicker to download and displays better in a wider range of browsers – include those on mobile phones. It's also easy to read.

Second, I plan to customise the site's look and feel in coming weeks. This is an easier basis to work from.

WordPress aficionados will recognise the theme here is The Journalist by Lucian E Marin.

Short snappy writing works best online.

First, people are less ready to read long pieces online than short articles.

Second, people read online material about 25 percent slower than print. Jakob Nielsen explains why in In defence of print. Nielsen wrote his article in 1996, but things haven't changed.

Third,  people get distracted easily online. There are advertisements and links to other web sites as well as bleeping notification of incoming emails, tweets and instant messages.

If you write a brief article there's a more chance readers will get to the end before skipping off elsewhere.

Fourth, skilled writers aim for brevity because good, vigourous English is concise.

A writer's goal is to get messages to readers as swiftly and as accurately as possible.

Get on. Say what you need to say. Get off.

Leave the fancy, flowery stuff to poets and fiction writers.

People spend less time reading online news than reading printed newspapers because reading online is more tiring.

I've no hard and fast evidence to offer. This is my observation. It would make a great research project.

People certainly do read less online than in print. I discovered this today in a different context at Newspapers online – the real dilemma.

Australian online media expert Ben Shepherd looks at why online newspapers earn less money than print newspapers. He says it comes down to engagement. A typical online consumer of Rupert Murdoch's products spends just 12.6 minutes a month reading News Corporation web sites. In comparison the average newspaper reader spends 2.8 hours a week with their printed copy.

There are other factors. But the technology of online reading is part of the problem:

• Newspapers and magazines are typically printed at about 600 dots per inch.
• Computer screens typically display text and pictures at 72 pixels per inch. Some display at 96 dots per inch.
• The contrast is usually far better on paper than on-screen.
• Screens include distracting elements. This is particularly bad where online news sites have video or audio advertising on the same page as news stories.

Lower resolution means it takes more effort for a human brain to convert text into meaningful information. Screens are fine for relatively small amounts of text, but over the long haul your eyes and your brain will get tired faster. You’ll find it harder to concentrate and your comprehension will suffer.

I’m a reader who can stay up all night with a decent novel, but I found it hard to stick with most eBook readers for more than ten minutes.

It's also worth noting here that many sub-editors and proof readers will find more errors on a printed page than on a screen.

What does this mean?

• The online reading revolution is going ahead without anyone worrying about readability, but it'll be better when improved screen technology arrives.
• In the back of my mind I suspect this is one reason the 140 word Twitter is so successful. Again, I'll leave the research project to someone else.

A company may be made up of many employees, but it is legally and grammatically a single entity.

Always use singular verbs with companies, even when the company name sounds plural. The same applies to countries, political parties, governments and partnerships. All are singular.

Some people think using they instead of it makes your writing more personal. Maybe. But being grammatically incorrect makes your writing and, more importantly, your meaning, unclear.

Resist all temptation to treat companies as plurals.

If you need a writer to help communicate your message, please contact me.

No-one doubts the quantity of information on the internet, but what about it’s quality?

I’m not going to attempt to estimate the amount of on-line information. There are millions of web sites and each offers one page or many hundreds of thousands. Let’s just agree there is a lot of information – a few gazillion words and pictures.

It’s the kind of resource our ancestors would have killed for. Ancient wars were fought over access to knowledge.

Would they fight the same wars to get access to the net? Probably.

But only because our ancestors liked a good scrap. While the modern Internet might be chock-a-block with information, it’s pretty light on knowledge.

It is not the place to go looking for wisdom.

Let’s face it, how many dead bodies would you walk over to unearth the lyrics of ‘Spice Up Your Life’?

Catalogues of high-resolution photographs showing supermodels in bathing costumes might be aesthetically pleasing. But unless you are a slow teenage boy wanting to study female anatomy, the knowledge content is slight.

Likewise all those painstakingly collected lists of quotes by characters from The Simpsons: entertainment value high, enlightenment quotient low.

Then there are the millions of dumb home pages filled with photos of cuddly animals, basketball stars and soft porn princesses. Adventurous, but unimaginative amateur developers garnish their pages with sound clips of heavy metal or rap. Some even craft complex Java scripts that do nothing special. If you’re brave, you can find some of the most atrocious poetry ever written.

Surf the net at random and you’ll find page after page of pure rubbish, mind-numbing sameness and precious little gold.

Of course, the web isn’t just the domain of gifted (or otherwise) non-professionals. Commercial sites run by highly trained specialists dominate the net. Of these, most are either selling something directly, or people who are selling things finance them. Which dilutes their value as independent information sources. How much credence would you give to free on-line personal finance advice given to you by a bank?

In engineer-speak, the Internet could be said to have a low signal-to-noise ratio. You have to sort through a great deal of rubbish to find anything worthwhile. But that implies a message is there at all. There might not be. Even if you know exactly what you are looking for and arm yourself with the best search tools, you can still come badly unstuck. Let me give you a chilling example.

A medical doctor recently surveyed 20 web sites offering help with self-treatment of common ailments. Each site looked plausible. Yet of the 20 sites, only three offered advice that squared with accepted medical procedure. A number of the sites offered seriously flawed advice. Some were no more than quackery. We’re not talking about cultural differences; we are talking snake oil. Sooner or later, real people with real health problems are going to roll up at these sites, take the advice at face value and damage themselves.

This isn’t funny.

In my view, the worst aspect of this problem is that the good, well-researched information is drowned out by the sheer volume of trash. Web-boosters used to say users would learn to recognise good information from bad by its brand. So for example, you might trust a news report from the ABC, BBC or CNN, but not from the National Enquirer. There’s certainly some truth in the idea. But would you know which brand to turn to for medical information or financial advice?

I'm a career journalist and editor.

What have I learnt about running a web site?

1. You don't need fancy software to blog.
2. Free hosting services are as good as or better than self-hosting.
3. Blogging can take up a huge amount of time, but it doesn't have to.
4. There's a community aspect to blogging that isn't apparent until you dive in and do it yourself.
5. Blogging is similar, but not the same as journalism.
6. My blogs don't tend to drive traffic to my website, nor do they deliver any direct economic benefits.