BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful(animalz.co)
animalz.co
BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful
https://www.animalz.co/blog/bottom-line-up-front/
135 comments
> One sentence in and I know what it's talking about.
And that's were I stopped reading, because I don't believe there is anything more interesting for me after that inital sentence. For me it's a win, I learned something new in almost no time. Now for the author or publisher it's a win too if they solely want to inform their readers.
If the intention is to keep the readers on the site as long as possible it's completely different though. Good long-form articles that keep the suspense till the end have their place too.
Where it gets muddy, and this is my opinion the majority of blog posts nowadays, is when the authors can't make up their minds. I understand that a lot of authors have a journalistic background or at least some journalistic training, where the "Inverted Pyramid"[1] (which is similar by idea to BLUF) is held in high regards. On the other hand they are pressured by the metrics to keep readers on the site. Add to that the common SEO wisdom that Google loves long pages better than short ones[2] you end up with Chimera articles where one half want's to build suspense and the other is afraid to bury the lede.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism)
[2] I don't know and don't claim it's true.
And that's were I stopped reading, because I don't believe there is anything more interesting for me after that inital sentence. For me it's a win, I learned something new in almost no time. Now for the author or publisher it's a win too if they solely want to inform their readers.
If the intention is to keep the readers on the site as long as possible it's completely different though. Good long-form articles that keep the suspense till the end have their place too.
Where it gets muddy, and this is my opinion the majority of blog posts nowadays, is when the authors can't make up their minds. I understand that a lot of authors have a journalistic background or at least some journalistic training, where the "Inverted Pyramid"[1] (which is similar by idea to BLUF) is held in high regards. On the other hand they are pressured by the metrics to keep readers on the site. Add to that the common SEO wisdom that Google loves long pages better than short ones[2] you end up with Chimera articles where one half want's to build suspense and the other is afraid to bury the lede.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism)
[2] I don't know and don't claim it's true.
kek
It still mildly infuriates me that the link text doesn't simply expand the acronym. Infinitely better:
Bottom Line Up Front: A military standard to make writing more powerfulYou enforced speed and lost clarity. You wrote “...to make writing more powerful.” which states nothing of value while “...designed to enforce speed and clarity in reports and emails.” tells you precisely that it was designed with the objectives of enforcing speed and enforcing clarity in the specific contexts of [military] reports and [military] emails.
With BLUF the burden is on the writer to be clear and concise, not on the reader to make the connections the writer hopes the reader will make. Leading with BLUF and expanding the acronym later in the sentence leads with the form in which you are most likely to encounter BLUF discussed in a professional context rather than expecting the reader to read the expanded form first and make the connection that “BLUF” is the contracted form of “Bottom Line Up Front” and “Bottom Line Up Front” is the expanded form of “BLUF”.
With BLUF the burden is on the writer to be clear and concise, not on the reader to make the connections the writer hopes the reader will make. Leading with BLUF and expanding the acronym later in the sentence leads with the form in which you are most likely to encounter BLUF discussed in a professional context rather than expecting the reader to read the expanded form first and make the connection that “BLUF” is the contracted form of “Bottom Line Up Front” and “Bottom Line Up Front” is the expanded form of “BLUF”.
Or, “Tell them what you’re going to tell them. Then, tell them. Then, tell them what you told them.” Or, Abstract. Introduction. Body. Conclusion.
Like everything else in the US military, there is a written standard to support this style. See Army Regulation 25-50, Section IV "The Army Writing Style" https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/r25_50....
> Army writing will be concise, organized, and to the point. Two essential requirements include putting the main point at the beginning of the correspondence (bottom line up front) and using the active voice (for example, “You are entitled to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year”).
> Army writing will be concise, organized, and to the point. Two essential requirements include putting the main point at the beginning of the correspondence (bottom line up front) and using the active voice (for example, “You are entitled to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year”).
The Air Force has a similar guide that has been around for decades, the "Tongue and Quill." We were introduced to it starting in officer training.
https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/saf_cio_a6/p...
https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/saf_cio_a6/p...
As does CIA
https://fas.org/irp/cia/product/style.pdf
https://fas.org/irp/cia/product/style.pdf
On the one hand - I really want to read that. On the other hand, should I download this PDF from the CIA?
That link isn’t the CIA.
Of course the Army name is practical and descriptive, and the Air Force name is whimsical.
Come to think of it that is a strangely poetic name for a military standard
That's the passive voice! The explanation for why their example of the active voice is in fact the passive voice is right below, in section "e". That's pretty funny.
Trying to make it active requires moving the key information to the end of the sentence:
"The time you spent in training last year entitles you to jump pay [for that time]."
Although style guides like this one usually advise against using passive voice because it makes things harder to read, clarity should be the goal, not just active voice. This is a good example of a reason you might prefer passive voice: because the verb's subject isn't the focus. Passive voice can also be clearer than active voice when there's no relevant or meaningful actor to use as the subject.
"The time you spent in training last year entitles you to jump pay [for that time]."
Although style guides like this one usually advise against using passive voice because it makes things harder to read, clarity should be the goal, not just active voice. This is a good example of a reason you might prefer passive voice: because the verb's subject isn't the focus. Passive voice can also be clearer than active voice when there's no relevant or meaningful actor to use as the subject.
Perhaps "You deserve jump pay for time spent in training last year"?
That is active voice, but subtly changes the meaning. “Deserve” suggests non-binding moral qualification, “are entitled to” suggests binding legal qualification. “You earned jump pay for...” is closer.
Honestly, though, this is a case where the usual purpose of active voice rules (to avoid deenohasizing or obscuring responsibility) is not actually frustrated even though the sample is in passive voice so while I wouldn't use it as an example of active voice I wouldn't necessarily avoid it even given an avoid-passive-voice guideline. (And I've reviewed documents under publication manuals with such guidelines.)
Honestly, though, this is a case where the usual purpose of active voice rules (to avoid deenohasizing or obscuring responsibility) is not actually frustrated even though the sample is in passive voice so while I wouldn't use it as an example of active voice I wouldn't necessarily avoid it even given an avoid-passive-voice guideline. (And I've reviewed documents under publication manuals with such guidelines.)
In another thread, I got to: "Applicable regulations entitle you to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year." For the passive reading I think that's the correct active version.
Or "The Army will pay you for ..."
You qualify for..?
It's not really a passive sentence, even though it has all the attributes the Army apparently deems necessary and sufficient to declare it as such in section e.
But a passive sentence is one where the subject is absent - but in this sentence, the subject is 'you'. 'Entitled to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year' is an adjectival phrase. The sentence makes an active statement about the recipient:
You are entitled to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year.
is no more passive than
You are a fine soldier.
A passive version of this sentence would be more like
You are being granted jump pay for the time you spent in training last year.
But a passive sentence is one where the subject is absent - but in this sentence, the subject is 'you'. 'Entitled to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year' is an adjectival phrase. The sentence makes an active statement about the recipient:
You are entitled to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year.
is no more passive than
You are a fine soldier.
A passive version of this sentence would be more like
You are being granted jump pay for the time you spent in training last year.
The subject of the verb "to entitle" is that which grants entitlement. The recipient is the object. I think we can legitimately read the sentence as passive.
Active; "applicable regulations" are doing something:
"Applicable regulations entitle you to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year."
Passive; "applicable regulations" are still doing something:
"You are entitled by applicable regulations to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year."
Still passive; vague about what's doing something:
"You are entitled to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year."
As you point out, "entitled" is often used as an adjective. I think you're right that the sentence can be read that way, and in that case it is indeed active.
After consideration, I think the passive read is more correct, but I can't yet put my finger on why.
Active; "applicable regulations" are doing something:
"Applicable regulations entitle you to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year."
Passive; "applicable regulations" are still doing something:
"You are entitled by applicable regulations to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year."
Still passive; vague about what's doing something:
"You are entitled to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year."
As you point out, "entitled" is often used as an adjective. I think you're right that the sentence can be read that way, and in that case it is indeed active.
After consideration, I think the passive read is more correct, but I can't yet put my finger on why.
Isn't the subject you, the verb "to be" (are) - and the reminder a describing clause?
You run quickly.
You are a good boy.
You are entitled to receive praise.
?
Ed: but "you qualify for pay" might be better active voice here?
Ed2: I see jameshart made a similar point more eloquently about "adjectival phrase"
You run quickly.
You are a good boy.
You are entitled to receive praise.
?
Ed: but "you qualify for pay" might be better active voice here?
Ed2: I see jameshart made a similar point more eloquently about "adjectival phrase"
"Quickly" modifies the verb, "a good boy" is a noun phrase.
"You are smart" is a better analogue, clearly active voice. "You are hit" is another analogue, clearly passive.
I still believe that we can read the original sentence in the latter way - with "entitled" a verb used passively. I remain unsure as to whether we can read it the other way - with "entitled" as adjective.
"You are smart" is a better analogue, clearly active voice. "You are hit" is another analogue, clearly passive.
I still believe that we can read the original sentence in the latter way - with "entitled" a verb used passively. I remain unsure as to whether we can read it the other way - with "entitled" as adjective.
[deleted]
Was that the wrong link? I was excited that someone had done the digging in language log to find a post that clarifies (I'd bet there's a few), but that one doesn't seem relevant.
It seems to be relevant in that it describes how the common formation of adjectival phrases in English (from which these new transitive formations discussed in the Language Log are a deviation) is based on adjective + prepositional phrase, and our subject sentence follows that pattern - "entitled" is being used as an adjective, and "to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year" is a prepositional phrase.
You are entitled to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year
You are familiar with this aircraft
Nobody would argue that that second sentence is a 'passive sentence', and it consists - in this analysis - of exactly the same grammatical elements.
But this all just comes down to the fact that 'to be' is a weird verb and it screws with a lot of grammatical assumptions; that the way participial adjectives are used blurs the question of what is the 'verb' in a sentence, and even that the verb 'to entitle' is a strange one in that it is often tricky to pin down what would be the subject of an active sentence using entitle as a verb.
I think we can all agree that it's basically a terrible choice of a sentence if you want to provide a clear example of how to favor the active voice in writing :)
You are entitled to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year
You are familiar with this aircraft
Nobody would argue that that second sentence is a 'passive sentence', and it consists - in this analysis - of exactly the same grammatical elements.
But this all just comes down to the fact that 'to be' is a weird verb and it screws with a lot of grammatical assumptions; that the way participial adjectives are used blurs the question of what is the 'verb' in a sentence, and even that the verb 'to entitle' is a strange one in that it is often tricky to pin down what would be the subject of an active sentence using entitle as a verb.
I think we can all agree that it's basically a terrible choice of a sentence if you want to provide a clear example of how to favor the active voice in writing :)
It's maybe obliquely relevant, but I don't think it actually clears up any of the questions at hand.
> "entitled" is being used as an adjective
But... I think that's always kinda what's going on with the passive? I can call someone entitled (although it usually takes a different connotation), but I can also call something "thrown" (eg. "The thrown ball strikes the catcher's mitt."). I think it's nonetheless uncontroversial that "the ball was thrown" is passive voice.
FWIW, checking a couple dictionaries (MW and AHD, chosen for being freely searchable online rather than quality) both list "entitle" as a transitive verb and seem (harder to be sure of with the interface) to omit separate mention of "entitled".
> "entitled" is being used as an adjective
But... I think that's always kinda what's going on with the passive? I can call someone entitled (although it usually takes a different connotation), but I can also call something "thrown" (eg. "The thrown ball strikes the catcher's mitt."). I think it's nonetheless uncontroversial that "the ball was thrown" is passive voice.
FWIW, checking a couple dictionaries (MW and AHD, chosen for being freely searchable online rather than quality) both list "entitle" as a transitive verb and seem (harder to be sure of with the interface) to omit separate mention of "entitled".
>the verb 'to entitle' is a strange one in that it is often tricky to pin down what would be the subject of an active sentence using entitle as a verb.
It isn't difficult at all. E.g. in "This coupon entitles them to cheese", "this coupon" is clearly the subject. You may be thinking about thematic structure more than grammatical relations.
It isn't difficult at all. E.g. in "This coupon entitles them to cheese", "this coupon" is clearly the subject. You may be thinking about thematic structure more than grammatical relations.
So—if I am entitled, what is doing the entitling? You rewrote the word as active which I guess is a valid point but a complete departure from conversation and not at all in good faith, my friend.
I think you might have misread my post (?) I was just giving an example of an active voice sentence with 'entitle'. There is nothing special about 'entitle' that makes it difficult to identify what the grammatical subject of the sentence is.
My post was in response to the claim that "it is often tricky to pin down what would be the subject of an active sentence using entitle as a verb".
My post was in response to the claim that "it is often tricky to pin down what would be the subject of an active sentence using entitle as a verb".
If you are genuinely entitled, you are probably entitled by law, by convention, by the terms of some contract. There's some framework, and some reason within it, that you are owed the thing.
We also seem to use "entitled" to mean that someone thinks they are owed things when they aren't - you often find this in rants about individual jerks or millennials in general. There's no subject to be had in that use because the entire point is that it is not legitimate.
I think the latter sense is always an adjective. The former sense clearly can be a transitive verb, and I have not found a seemingly grammatical utterance that can't be described that way (I think - IANALinguist). The fact that the subject can be left unspecified is a feature of the passive construction in general, and an often-stated motivation for some of the criticism it receives.
We also seem to use "entitled" to mean that someone thinks they are owed things when they aren't - you often find this in rants about individual jerks or millennials in general. There's no subject to be had in that use because the entire point is that it is not legitimate.
I think the latter sense is always an adjective. The former sense clearly can be a transitive verb, and I have not found a seemingly grammatical utterance that can't be described that way (I think - IANALinguist). The fact that the subject can be left unspecified is a feature of the passive construction in general, and an often-stated motivation for some of the criticism it receives.
"are" in the concluding sentence of thread parent is equivalent to "are being" in your concluding sentence. "granted" is equivalent to "entitled". In a passive-voice sentence like this, the object of the verb is made to seem like the subject, but the object it remains.
I'd argue it's active. But the choice of verb - "to be entitled to" - is poor. A conditional "claim" would make for a better active sentence: "You can claim jump pay for the time..."
Argue all you want, but it’s still passive voice. The sentence does not tell the reader who or what is the source of entitlement. Even if it did, it may still be passive voice (You are entitled … by AR XX-X …). The same sentence in active voice is “Army Regulation XX-X entitles you to jump pay for …”
Your suggested improvement is in the active voice, but it’s still wordy. Using can weakens a statement, so look to eliminate this worthless verb. Prefer will or in this case get to the point with “Claim jump pay on Form DDXXXX for the time …”
Your suggested improvement is in the active voice, but it’s still wordy. Using can weakens a statement, so look to eliminate this worthless verb. Prefer will or in this case get to the point with “Claim jump pay on Form DDXXXX for the time …”
Academic abstracts are very similar but evolved to serve a slightly different purpose. Papers take time to read and there are a lot of them coming out all the time, so researchers need to know if a paper has something they're interested in it before investing the time to read it. I've grown accustomed to this consideration from people who want my eyeballs to read their words. If you send me messages, etc. similar to what this article uses as "before BLUF" examples, it's very likely going to piss me off.
There are a decent number of long-form articles posted on Hacker News that don't follow this standard and don't have a last paragraph (or two, or three...) that's any more helpful. They typically have an intriguing click-bait title that fails to fully parse and I wind up clicking on them just to figure out what they're about. I read three or four paragraphs in and it becomes clear the article is going to do a painfully slow reveal of it's point, if it even has one. So, I scroll alllll the way down to the bottom, noting that it will take a good twenty minutes to read that far, and find the last few paragraphs to be utterly unhelpful ramblings rather than a summary or conclusion. Giving up, I read the comments here and it is frequently the case that a lot of people are just commenting on the title without having figured out what heck the article is about either.
I find this absolutely infuriating.
I apologize for venting.
There are a decent number of long-form articles posted on Hacker News that don't follow this standard and don't have a last paragraph (or two, or three...) that's any more helpful. They typically have an intriguing click-bait title that fails to fully parse and I wind up clicking on them just to figure out what they're about. I read three or four paragraphs in and it becomes clear the article is going to do a painfully slow reveal of it's point, if it even has one. So, I scroll alllll the way down to the bottom, noting that it will take a good twenty minutes to read that far, and find the last few paragraphs to be utterly unhelpful ramblings rather than a summary or conclusion. Giving up, I read the comments here and it is frequently the case that a lot of people are just commenting on the title without having figured out what heck the article is about either.
I find this absolutely infuriating.
I apologize for venting.
This is a sore spot for me, someone sending an IM with a quick "Got a minute?", which pulls me out of my thought zone. And once I answer back, I have no idea how long it is going to take for them to tell me what their issue is (could be 30 seconds, or a couple minutes -- I've often waited for 10 minutes, then got up to go for a meeting, and they get upset when I don't answer).
I'd much rather them just tell me what problem they are having up front, so I cat least give them an answer and get back to work.
I'd much rather them just tell me what problem they are having up front, so I cat least give them an answer and get back to work.
I think about this a lot, and I call it "atomic messaging" in my head. You need to be able to address the message in full as if it were a pop up. (As messages often are via notifications) If the message requires follow up for clarity it's not atomic enough.
Example:
Did you ask him if what the results were? -> Did you ask Jim what the results of the 2019 Survey are?
It's really helped me avoid being that person, and I've asked it of others with varying results.
Example:
Did you ask him if what the results were? -> Did you ask Jim what the results of the 2019 Survey are?
It's really helped me avoid being that person, and I've asked it of others with varying results.
Yes! This applies just as much to email correspondence.
I think of it as resolving all references.
(Can I make up a new TLA? RAR!)
I think of it as resolving all references.
(Can I make up a new TLA? RAR!)
I have a friend leading the IT team in a company of ~300, and he goes nuts if people keep probing him with "are you here?".
He's a very chill person, but the problem was getting out of hand, so he started pasting users back with just a link to a page explaining why one does not simply do that. Some people took offense, but mostly the situation improved.
It was along the lines of [1], but not sure if it's exactly the same.
[1] https://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html
He's a very chill person, but the problem was getting out of hand, so he started pasting users back with just a link to a page explaining why one does not simply do that. Some people took offense, but mostly the situation improved.
It was along the lines of [1], but not sure if it's exactly the same.
[1] https://sol.gfxile.net/dontask.html
I learned this from #python on irc.freenode.org.
"Don't ask to ask, just ask" is their rule, and the frequently repeat it.
"Don't ask to ask, just ask" is their rule, and the frequently repeat it.
For that, there's this: http://www.nohello.com/2013/01/please-dont-say-just-hello-in....
Much of my previous life:
— ut?
— Ugh what? [ Stare at screen for what feels like an hour. ]
— nvm
— ut?
— Ugh what? [ Stare at screen for what feels like an hour. ]
— nvm
[deleted]
[deleted]
What about replying with a link to this article :- )
Q: "Got a minute?"
A: "No"
Then close the app/tab and crank up that Led Zeppelin so you can GSD
Then close the app/tab and crank up that Led Zeppelin so you can GSD
My dad was career military. So was my ex husband.
This military communications standard probably goes a long ways towards explaining why people seem to either think I'm rude, crude and socially unacceptable or refreshingly direct with no BS.
This military communications standard probably goes a long ways towards explaining why people seem to either think I'm rude, crude and socially unacceptable or refreshingly direct with no BS.
I completely identify myself with this. Many people told me that I was rude because of my way I communicate in workplace. But since then, the group I'm working with got used to me and some of them have adopted this style. Sometimes we're really hurry with the schedules and continuous feedback among us has helped us to meet that schedules.
[deleted]
One unfortunate thing about the opposite, very polite or "guess" communicator, is that sometimes when one provides all necessary data immediately, that communication is simply not heard.
Very polite communicators actually can have trouble processing a situation that's fully laid out before without the protocols of etiquette. It's heck of annoying but one can learn to adjust to it also.
Very polite communicators actually can have trouble processing a situation that's fully laid out before without the protocols of etiquette. It's heck of annoying but one can learn to adjust to it also.
I'm aware.
I actually think that sort of thing is a major underlying problem in male-female communication. When a woman says and does the same things as a man, it can get interpreted completely differently due to either the simple fact that she is female or due to subtle differences between "male culture" and "female culture" so to speak. (as just one example.)
I get that there is no single standard that works everywhere all the time. But I've personally found it very helpful to realize that low context culture is not somehow "socially worse" than high context culture. Viewing it that way implicitly promotes xenophobia, which ends up being justification for things like white supremacy -- ie "You people who are not like us are fundamentally Doing It Wrong because you are doing it different from how we would handle it."
It was helpful to me to realize this is a legitimate form of communication that faces specific pitfalls in the world and not some sort of character defect on my end. That helps me make judgment calls about when to approach things one way versus another and also helps me make my peace with "You can't please all of the people all of the time."
I actually think that sort of thing is a major underlying problem in male-female communication. When a woman says and does the same things as a man, it can get interpreted completely differently due to either the simple fact that she is female or due to subtle differences between "male culture" and "female culture" so to speak. (as just one example.)
I get that there is no single standard that works everywhere all the time. But I've personally found it very helpful to realize that low context culture is not somehow "socially worse" than high context culture. Viewing it that way implicitly promotes xenophobia, which ends up being justification for things like white supremacy -- ie "You people who are not like us are fundamentally Doing It Wrong because you are doing it different from how we would handle it."
It was helpful to me to realize this is a legitimate form of communication that faces specific pitfalls in the world and not some sort of character defect on my end. That helps me make judgment calls about when to approach things one way versus another and also helps me make my peace with "You can't please all of the people all of the time."
Indeed, I remember a friend of who told me "Just imagine a fat, middle-aged guy speaking when I communicate". Of course, the problem was I could hear this but the guy she wanted to get this through to couldn't.
Which is to say that some guys can completely shift gears and accept the woman communicating as just one of the guys. And some can't. And it's not divided in some liberal/conservative fashion.
Which is to say that some guys can completely shift gears and accept the woman communicating as just one of the guys. And some can't. And it's not divided in some liberal/conservative fashion.
Yes, this is the point. I think there is no single right style of communication. People should be aware of that and especially in the workplace not only encourage that but also base hiring decisions on that. Large groups that regular meet in the workplace and consist only of people talking overly polite might hide issues under the rug. The paradox is that one has the same situations with people talking in this top-down military style because complex problems cannot be communicated this way effectively, they often take patience to listen.
Also indeed there is no correlation between both styles and whether the people talking like that are polite or impolite. Massive impoliteness can also be hidden behind polite phrasing and intonation and vice-versa.
Also indeed there is no correlation between both styles and whether the people talking like that are polite or impolite. Massive impoliteness can also be hidden behind polite phrasing and intonation and vice-versa.
BLUF is completely disarming to sensitive people. Consider it a subcultural impasse.
BLUF, as a generalized communication style, is a way of thinking that impatiently violates the social pleasantries of socializing for the sake of being social.
BLUF, as a generalized communication style, is a way of thinking that impatiently violates the social pleasantries of socializing for the sake of being social.
[deleted]
BLUF is for communication between military personnel. Sensitive people who join the military "get over it" pretty quickly.
As in all communications, knowing your audience and their norms is of utmost importance to avoid miscommunication or giving offence.
As in all communications, knowing your audience and their norms is of utmost importance to avoid miscommunication or giving offence.
The perfect three section military email: (typically from a subordinate to a superior)
1) BLUF statement of the subject at hand.
2) Details section that gives in-depth explanations and references to relevant military regulations as to why BLUF statement is correct / best course of action.
3) "The Way Ahead" section that gives recommended next steps or possible future issues to be aware of.
1) BLUF statement of the subject at hand.
2) Details section that gives in-depth explanations and references to relevant military regulations as to why BLUF statement is correct / best course of action.
3) "The Way Ahead" section that gives recommended next steps or possible future issues to be aware of.
Former journalist here. This structure is also known as "inverted pyramid"[0]. CIA has a book[1] that details the process to apply the structure recursively to build an article.
Beware of the potential pitfalls of "stating the key first":
1. The key point might be complex and requires a build up – rushing to the point could confuse your readers;
2. What's "most important" depends on the reader and if you write for a wide audience, it is not always obvious;
3. If you design your writing to be "modular", readers could be more likely to abandon your work prematurely;
4. Sometimes the most important detail is that you are taking the time and being patient to communicate, and making a point with little context could alienate;
5. You could feel lazy and not control the complexity of your article because "I already made it easy for the readers to skim and skip!".
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism)
[1] https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.scip.org/resource/resmgr/White_Pap...
Beware of the potential pitfalls of "stating the key first":
1. The key point might be complex and requires a build up – rushing to the point could confuse your readers;
2. What's "most important" depends on the reader and if you write for a wide audience, it is not always obvious;
3. If you design your writing to be "modular", readers could be more likely to abandon your work prematurely;
4. Sometimes the most important detail is that you are taking the time and being patient to communicate, and making a point with little context could alienate;
5. You could feel lazy and not control the complexity of your article because "I already made it easy for the readers to skim and skip!".
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism)
[1] https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.scip.org/resource/resmgr/White_Pap...
It's funny that this has even a name and is so wide-spread. One can also apply this principle to talking and I used to work with people that were obsessed with this style. I totally agree with you that there are pitfalls and probably one could even add more to the list.
Probably there is a good reason why people usually talk the way they do: build up a context, make the listener (or reader) familiar with what is going on and why we are talking about this. And then explain what we are actually talking about.
This inverted pyramid talking style is so artificial and makes me question whether the advocates of it are just using it as an excuse to not read or listen to anything. It makes people indeed just hurry through communication.
Probably there is a good reason why people usually talk the way they do: build up a context, make the listener (or reader) familiar with what is going on and why we are talking about this. And then explain what we are actually talking about.
This inverted pyramid talking style is so artificial and makes me question whether the advocates of it are just using it as an excuse to not read or listen to anything. It makes people indeed just hurry through communication.
Writing formulae are like design patterns. They give us names to think and talk about structures, but too often become dogmata.
This mode of writing has its strength, unfortunately it also encourages a lazy and low detail mode of communication when applied to places it doesn't belong.
I have had the experience of working in an environment with ex-military folks installed in leadership positions, the BLUF style of communication was standard issue.
One problem this style of communication has when applied to a non-military work environment is that top-down communication ends up taking the form of commands, as opposed to actually conveying information that would enlighten the reader.
I have had the experience of working in an environment with ex-military folks installed in leadership positions, the BLUF style of communication was standard issue.
One problem this style of communication has when applied to a non-military work environment is that top-down communication ends up taking the form of commands, as opposed to actually conveying information that would enlighten the reader.
>> taking the form of commands, as opposed to actually conveying information that would enlighten the reader.
That's a key observation. BLUF is most used when officers are talking to non-officers. The assumption is that the non-officers need to know what to do, but do not need to know why they need to do something. Between officers, BLUF is not nearly as common. The assumption is that officers shall have wider latitude, the ability to even disobey the specific instructions, and so need greater background information.
Captain to corporals: All pickup trucks shall carry a fire extinguisher. [BLUF]
Captain to Warrant Officers: Provide fire extinguishers in all the pickup trucks because local law requires it. [BLUF + context to encourage compliance]
Captain to lieutenant: A new law was just past that looks to require fire extinguishers in all pickup trucks on public roads. Please make sure none of our trucks leave the base without one. [No BLUF. Explanation of situation and commander intent. Specifics of implementation left in hands of reader]
That's a key observation. BLUF is most used when officers are talking to non-officers. The assumption is that the non-officers need to know what to do, but do not need to know why they need to do something. Between officers, BLUF is not nearly as common. The assumption is that officers shall have wider latitude, the ability to even disobey the specific instructions, and so need greater background information.
Captain to corporals: All pickup trucks shall carry a fire extinguisher. [BLUF]
Captain to Warrant Officers: Provide fire extinguishers in all the pickup trucks because local law requires it. [BLUF + context to encourage compliance]
Captain to lieutenant: A new law was just past that looks to require fire extinguishers in all pickup trucks on public roads. Please make sure none of our trucks leave the base without one. [No BLUF. Explanation of situation and commander intent. Specifics of implementation left in hands of reader]
So how does powerpoint impact communication density?
>> BLUF is most used when officers are talking to non-officers.
I have seen it used by staff officers to quickly convey important information to commanders who need to make decisions and don't have time to read a novel of details.
Commanders need important information first and supporting details second. BLUF is an ideal format for this since it emphasizes concise, prioritized communication.
I have seen it used by staff officers to quickly convey important information to commanders who need to make decisions and don't have time to read a novel of details.
Commanders need important information first and supporting details second. BLUF is an ideal format for this since it emphasizes concise, prioritized communication.
I find that most of the time those written statements between staff and commanders are just the tip of a huge iceberg. Lots of non-official communications back and forth have already happened. The commanders are already aware of the reasoning behind the decision because they probably briefed it to the staff. So the eventual official communication is indeed very brief.
>The assumption is that the non-officers need to know what to do, but do not need to know why they need to do something.
I spent almost 2 decades in the Army. Its a terrible assumption. Except for combat situations, other emergencies, or really trivial tasks, everyone should know why they are doing something. It is physically impossible to make a non-stupid person care about a thing of which they have no knowledge. From my experience, the one thing that has the greatest impact on a person's ability to do a good job is a genuine desire to accomplish whatever their objective is. If they don't know what that objective is, they simply aren't going to give a shit. They might get it done adequately, but the military is a self-proclaimed meritocracy, so one would think that isn't enough.
It has been at least 50 years if not 100 since the majority of enlisted people didn't have a decent education. Now its incredibly common for enlisted Soldiers to have an undergraduate degree. Education isn't a guarantee of competence, intelligence, or even anything remotely useful, but that goes for officers and enlisted personnel.
Yet the military still insists on operating like they did in olden times when the average enlisted person was an illiterate farm hand. Their primary business is the physical enforcement of political interests (AKA combat), so in some ways it makes sense for them even though it also hurts them. However, businesses should be careful when evaluating their methodologies for civilian use, because there are certainly a ton of drawbacks.
The reason the US military is one of the most capable fighting forces in the world has more to do with technological sophistication (created by civilians) and a near unlimited budget than it has to do with the leadership of the military, the horrific bureaucracy that the leadership created/maintains, or the frequently alleged magical, inherent superiority of the American soldier.
I spent almost 2 decades in the Army. Its a terrible assumption. Except for combat situations, other emergencies, or really trivial tasks, everyone should know why they are doing something. It is physically impossible to make a non-stupid person care about a thing of which they have no knowledge. From my experience, the one thing that has the greatest impact on a person's ability to do a good job is a genuine desire to accomplish whatever their objective is. If they don't know what that objective is, they simply aren't going to give a shit. They might get it done adequately, but the military is a self-proclaimed meritocracy, so one would think that isn't enough.
It has been at least 50 years if not 100 since the majority of enlisted people didn't have a decent education. Now its incredibly common for enlisted Soldiers to have an undergraduate degree. Education isn't a guarantee of competence, intelligence, or even anything remotely useful, but that goes for officers and enlisted personnel.
Yet the military still insists on operating like they did in olden times when the average enlisted person was an illiterate farm hand. Their primary business is the physical enforcement of political interests (AKA combat), so in some ways it makes sense for them even though it also hurts them. However, businesses should be careful when evaluating their methodologies for civilian use, because there are certainly a ton of drawbacks.
The reason the US military is one of the most capable fighting forces in the world has more to do with technological sophistication (created by civilians) and a near unlimited budget than it has to do with the leadership of the military, the horrific bureaucracy that the leadership created/maintains, or the frequently alleged magical, inherent superiority of the American soldier.
You are overthinking the problem. It isn't that there is no advantage in explaining things, but often times the enlisted really don't want to listen to some officer drone on about why something is being done. For the trivial stuff, stuff like my example above, they really have no immediate interest in why something has to be done. That can come later. The published SOP, the checklist in the guard shack, doesn't need to include the history behind the decision.
One thing that most leaders ignore is that explaining a decision to people who have no real input into that decision can often be really bad for moral. It makes the decision maker look less than confident, like they are seeking reassurance in their decision by explaining all the background behind it.
One thing that most leaders ignore is that explaining a decision to people who have no real input into that decision can often be really bad for moral. It makes the decision maker look less than confident, like they are seeking reassurance in their decision by explaining all the background behind it.
I agreed above that for trivial things an explanation is unnecessary.
> It isn't that there is no advantage in explaining things, but often times the enlisted really don't want to listen to some officer drone on about why something is being done.
From my experience this mostly happens when the explanation is either blatant lying, or if its true and reveals that incompetence at a higher level than the officer delivering the message has generated a bunch of unnecessary work for the unit.
More commonly I hear Soldiers saying "This is stupid, why are we doing this?" to their comrades and NCOs. Usually followed by the Soldiers doing whatever it is to the minimal accepted standard.
> It isn't that there is no advantage in explaining things, but often times the enlisted really don't want to listen to some officer drone on about why something is being done.
From my experience this mostly happens when the explanation is either blatant lying, or if its true and reveals that incompetence at a higher level than the officer delivering the message has generated a bunch of unnecessary work for the unit.
More commonly I hear Soldiers saying "This is stupid, why are we doing this?" to their comrades and NCOs. Usually followed by the Soldiers doing whatever it is to the minimal accepted standard.
> is that top-down communication ends up taking the form of commands
Another problem is that it’s not suitable for marketing. How are you going to hook the reader if the copy is clear? Same in private life: How do you get loved if you communicate clearly your intentions? That’s what people hate the most! The whole left brain is high on imagination (or emotions fed by imaginated expectations), as are most people, and as an Asperger it is very hard to talk to people on this channel.
I’m serious. Marketing mostly relies on unclear information when needed. Example with the front page of Atlassian: “Atlassian helps teams work smarter and faster, together.” is not BLUF at all. BLUF would be “Atlassian sells an intranet, an issue tracker, a Git repo and a build engine”...
Another problem is that it’s not suitable for marketing. How are you going to hook the reader if the copy is clear? Same in private life: How do you get loved if you communicate clearly your intentions? That’s what people hate the most! The whole left brain is high on imagination (or emotions fed by imaginated expectations), as are most people, and as an Asperger it is very hard to talk to people on this channel.
I’m serious. Marketing mostly relies on unclear information when needed. Example with the front page of Atlassian: “Atlassian helps teams work smarter and faster, together.” is not BLUF at all. BLUF would be “Atlassian sells an intranet, an issue tracker, a Git repo and a build engine”...
I think the problem is that "give the whole context" is a clear directive in the military context but fairly tricky to figure out in a civilian context.
I naturally write in an inductive style, data+evidence followed by conclusion. And gosh darn, don't I just feel brilliant when, after I've laid out all my evidence and my deserving reader has been inevitably led to the only possible conclusion, mine, they agree with the only possible conclusion, mine. My reader is so lucky to have me as a writer.
Well, at least I was made aware of this particular conceit by some rhet profs at Berkeley. But really, anyone, myself included, who writes inductively in a professional setting should be fired for having wasted their readers' time. Luckily, HN is not a professional setting.
Well, at least I was made aware of this particular conceit by some rhet profs at Berkeley. But really, anyone, myself included, who writes inductively in a professional setting should be fired for having wasted their readers' time. Luckily, HN is not a professional setting.
That was an inductive style comment itself? :- ) at least not BLUF (it didn't start with "they should be fired")
The author is writing about advertising and bulk mail copy, not "communication". This is the classic advertising concept that ads should include a call to action.[1] Also, this came from Harvard Business Review in 2016.[2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_to_action_(marketing) [2] https://hbr.org/2016/11/how-to-write-email-with-military-pre...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_to_action_(marketing) [2] https://hbr.org/2016/11/how-to-write-email-with-military-pre...
I wish more news site articles would practice this. So many times I'm scanning the damn thing for the bottom line to decide if I want to read all the waffle or not.
Back before the Internet became users' most important news source, newspapers used to do have a hierarchical structure to their stories. The headline would tell you a fair bit, then the first paragraph or two would tell you all the salient points, and each subsequent paragraph would add details.
Now it seems that the important things are buried at the end of the article. The idea seems to be to hook you in and make you keep reading. You hope to find what you're looking for, and in the process stay longer on this page, possibly getting distracted by ads and (intrasite) links.
Now it seems that the important things are buried at the end of the article. The idea seems to be to hook you in and make you keep reading. You hope to find what you're looking for, and in the process stay longer on this page, possibly getting distracted by ads and (intrasite) links.
or make you view all the ads that appear in the page :)
Support. It seems to be especially common in American publications which begin with a mini-story about some random person before getting to the actual point. E.g., I just looked at [1] which was linked from Hacker News and it starts out with some completely unnecessary details about somebody tripping over a garden hose.
[1] https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-09-12/medical-eq...
[1] https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-09-12/medical-eq...
Yeah, I'm aware of that. I wish more journalists put it into practice though.
It was followed in print. But ad clicks have inverted it so that we scroll through all the monetization.
From one of the article's comments: "Question: would you use BLUF in every blog intro? Storytelling intros can be inspiring, for example."
If every blog intro followed BLUF, then maybe I'd be actually interested in reading them. Storytelling intros only inspire me to lose interest immediately and close the tab.
If every blog intro followed BLUF, then maybe I'd be actually interested in reading them. Storytelling intros only inspire me to lose interest immediately and close the tab.
I came across this recently, when writing a blog post about a puzzle I solved. I wasn't sure whether to structure the post "chronologically", telling a story:
1. Here's an interesting puzzle.
2, 3, 4, 5. These are the steps I took to solve it.
6. Hence the solution is X.
1. Here's an interesting puzzle.
2. I found the solution is X.
3, 4, 5, 6. These are the steps I took to find that solution.
Teach a person to fish. 1 maps to 2. And how it got there is [3,6]. This is absolutely (that word) the right way to go.
I think it's more like:
Example:
BLUF: CONCUR, WITH CONDITIONS- The civilians may participate in the breacher training, but there are requirements to meet.
You asked whether civilian law enforcement agencies (CLEAs) may participate in breacher training on a space- and time-available basis. I have no legal objection, provided the CLEAs certify that receiving the training from commercial or other non-DoD sources would be impractical due to cost or time, and provided the request is routed for concurrence through the chain of command for approval by ASN(M&RA). Additionally, anything beyond marginal costs must be paid by the CLEAs.
Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 273
(b) DoDI 1325.21
(c) SECNAVINST 5820.7C
(d) DEPSECDEF Memo of 29 Jun 96, DoD Training Support to U.S. Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies
(e) 10 U.S.C. § 2012
Authority. Reference (a) grants authority to SECDEF “to train . . . civilian law enforcement officials in the operation and maintenance of equipment.” In paragraphs 1.f and 5.c of enclosure (3) to reference (b), SECDEF granted approval authority to the service Secretaries. SECNAV issued guidance in reference (c), including the requirement for cost reimbursement beyond marginal costs. Under references (b) and (c), ASN(M&RA) – in consultation with ASD(HD&GS) – may authorize the use of up to 49 DoD personnel for training; installation commanders or commanders of unit training centers may authorize the use of DoD equipment and facilities.
Analysis. CLEAs may participate in training if all of the following criteria are met:
- Extent. The training cannot be large-scale, elaborate, or advanced military training. Advanced military training, defined in reference (d), is “high intensity training” pertaining to interactions with a “criminal suspect” or “when the potential for a violent confrontation exists.” The breacher training will satisfy this requirement.
- Resources. Non-DoD training must be unfeasible or impractical due to cost or time, and the training cannot compromise military preparedness. You indicated that we have sufficient “depth” to accommodate the CLEAs without compromising preparedness, but the CLEAs must show that non-DoD options are unfeasible or impractical.
- Role Limitations. DoD personnel must not directly participate in fundamentally civilian law enforcement operations, and there must be no reasonable likelihood of confrontation between law enforcement and civilians during the training. This is standard military training, not fundamentally civilian law enforcement-related in nature. Additionally, it is unlikely that unaffiliated civilians will be present.
Alternatives. Reference (e) authorizes “Innovative Readiness Training”; however, subsection (i) of reference (e) precludes using that authority for “civilian law enforcement purposes.” There is very little guidance as to whether that might apply for a mere training program; however, the legally safer course of action is to avoid using this authority.
Conclusion. References (a) through (d) authorize us to permit civilian law enforcement participation in our breacher training, but we must first receive a request from the civilian law enforcement participants explaining why alternatives are not feasible or practical. Additionally, the request for authorization for the training must be routed to ASN(M&RA).
0. Statement of fact that constitutes the solution.
1. Here's the issue
2. The solution is X because (preview of analysis.)
3, 4, 5, 6. This is how we determined that.
Example:
BLUF: CONCUR, WITH CONDITIONS- The civilians may participate in the breacher training, but there are requirements to meet.
You asked whether civilian law enforcement agencies (CLEAs) may participate in breacher training on a space- and time-available basis. I have no legal objection, provided the CLEAs certify that receiving the training from commercial or other non-DoD sources would be impractical due to cost or time, and provided the request is routed for concurrence through the chain of command for approval by ASN(M&RA). Additionally, anything beyond marginal costs must be paid by the CLEAs.
Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 273
(b) DoDI 1325.21
(c) SECNAVINST 5820.7C
(d) DEPSECDEF Memo of 29 Jun 96, DoD Training Support to U.S. Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies
(e) 10 U.S.C. § 2012
Authority. Reference (a) grants authority to SECDEF “to train . . . civilian law enforcement officials in the operation and maintenance of equipment.” In paragraphs 1.f and 5.c of enclosure (3) to reference (b), SECDEF granted approval authority to the service Secretaries. SECNAV issued guidance in reference (c), including the requirement for cost reimbursement beyond marginal costs. Under references (b) and (c), ASN(M&RA) – in consultation with ASD(HD&GS) – may authorize the use of up to 49 DoD personnel for training; installation commanders or commanders of unit training centers may authorize the use of DoD equipment and facilities.
Analysis. CLEAs may participate in training if all of the following criteria are met:
- Extent. The training cannot be large-scale, elaborate, or advanced military training. Advanced military training, defined in reference (d), is “high intensity training” pertaining to interactions with a “criminal suspect” or “when the potential for a violent confrontation exists.” The breacher training will satisfy this requirement.
- Resources. Non-DoD training must be unfeasible or impractical due to cost or time, and the training cannot compromise military preparedness. You indicated that we have sufficient “depth” to accommodate the CLEAs without compromising preparedness, but the CLEAs must show that non-DoD options are unfeasible or impractical.
- Role Limitations. DoD personnel must not directly participate in fundamentally civilian law enforcement operations, and there must be no reasonable likelihood of confrontation between law enforcement and civilians during the training. This is standard military training, not fundamentally civilian law enforcement-related in nature. Additionally, it is unlikely that unaffiliated civilians will be present.
Alternatives. Reference (e) authorizes “Innovative Readiness Training”; however, subsection (i) of reference (e) precludes using that authority for “civilian law enforcement purposes.” There is very little guidance as to whether that might apply for a mere training program; however, the legally safer course of action is to avoid using this authority.
Conclusion. References (a) through (d) authorize us to permit civilian law enforcement participation in our breacher training, but we must first receive a request from the civilian law enforcement participants explaining why alternatives are not feasible or practical. Additionally, the request for authorization for the training must be routed to ASN(M&RA).
Bottom line up front does seem a little like tl;dr up front.
TLDRUF?
TLDRUF?
I have a boss who would treat the subject line of his emails like SMS. The body of the email is often blank. I have adopted that. It makes BLUF look slow and awkward.
That works really well if it finishes with EOM or <eom>.
Otherwise it's unclear if there is missing content.
Otherwise it's unclear if there is missing content.
I use to do this (with an "EOM" on the end) but gmail doesn't lend itself well to this.
this was a common msft corp email technique in the 90s. it worked really well<eom>
We did this too at my first job, and I also included SOM and MOM for start and middle.
Yep. More than a decade ago, I formulated this rule: if it doesn't say what it wants in the first 3 sentences, I ain't reading it.
I'd also suggest one more thing: do not send emails on which you expect a response on Friday evening. It'll be gone and forgotten by Monday. Send it on Monday morning instead. OTOH if you'd like to bury some mildly bad news, Friday evening is a perfect time to send it out, for the same reason.
I'd also suggest one more thing: do not send emails on which you expect a response on Friday evening. It'll be gone and forgotten by Monday. Send it on Monday morning instead. OTOH if you'd like to bury some mildly bad news, Friday evening is a perfect time to send it out, for the same reason.
Makes sense, depending on complexity my email sections tend to be.
Executive summary: Summary: In general: Specifically:
Now I feel all sorts of validated for being pedantic about the whole thing.
Executive summary: Summary: In general: Specifically:
Now I feel all sorts of validated for being pedantic about the whole thing.
Yes.
In most of the companies I work with, there tend to be large email threads. It's not uncommon for a dozen people to be on a thread once I get snowballed into it. There are not only engineers but usually C-level folks as well.
By the time I make my reply, I usually end up writing "bottom up" just like you are saying... I write the detail, then summarize it above and then try to answer the top 1 or 2 questions I know the top-level folks will want answered at the bottom—even if it's just "we know what the problem is and it's been fixed or will be fixed shortly".
I think it's comforting for the top-level folks to see the respect that answers their questions quickly and it also makes them feel good that additional detail is available for those who care.
In most of the companies I work with, there tend to be large email threads. It's not uncommon for a dozen people to be on a thread once I get snowballed into it. There are not only engineers but usually C-level folks as well.
By the time I make my reply, I usually end up writing "bottom up" just like you are saying... I write the detail, then summarize it above and then try to answer the top 1 or 2 questions I know the top-level folks will want answered at the bottom—even if it's just "we know what the problem is and it's been fixed or will be fixed shortly".
I think it's comforting for the top-level folks to see the respect that answers their questions quickly and it also makes them feel good that additional detail is available for those who care.
I appreciate a detail of this author's writing that is not pointed out. It lacks a concluding paragraph.
I think this is a relic of gradeschool essay writing rules (i.e, Say what you are going to say, say it, say what you said).
I almost alway stop reading an article once I sense I've reached the conclusion. That means I've learned what the author wants me to learn, and all I'm going to get next is a pithy sign off.
I think this is a relic of gradeschool essay writing rules (i.e, Say what you are going to say, say it, say what you said).
I almost alway stop reading an article once I sense I've reached the conclusion. That means I've learned what the author wants me to learn, and all I'm going to get next is a pithy sign off.
I always try to give my essays horror-movie-style conclusions, which creepily undermine everything that went before.
Funny, this is more or less exactly how we write our reports. But I've never heard of 'BLUF'. It seems to be the most logical way in which to write a report given that attention decays over the reading of a piece and that active voice trumps passive voice when writing about real world events and situations, it simply makes the writing more compelling.
It reminds me of the format for git commit messages; where the first line is short and sweet and to the point of what it is, and the content following it is supporting details and more verbose.
It's interesting to see known patterns applied in different environments and named differently but the essence is the same.
It's interesting to see known patterns applied in different environments and named differently but the essence is the same.
true story: a number of years ago I used this acronym in conversation. None of my coworkers had heard of it. They quickly googled it and ended up here: https://www.bluf.com which really confused them.
Also look at Inverted pyramid (journalism): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism)
Legal writing has a similar concept, though it's not as standardized as BLUF. It goes by various abbreviations: IRAC, CRAP, CRAC, CREAC. They all follow the same general format: state your conclusion (C) or the relevant issue (I), recite the rule (R) of law that applies to the facts, explain (E) how the facts apply (A) to the rule of law, and finally restate your conclusion (C) or predict (P) which way the ruling body will decide. Like BLUF, the legal writing format assumes the reader will read only the first part of a communication, and will continue only if he or she needs more detail.
Tactics like BLUF are the sad sign of times. We put too much emphasis on hacks, efficiency, and tactics instead of learning and practicing age old rules for good writing or whatever else we need to master.
I've been doing this for a while and didn't know it had a name. Sometimes I add an explicit snarky heading like this:
TL;DR: <Main point>
<Long explanation>
However, when writing comments on HN or other forums I go for what I call a "fireside chat" approach. Complete with metaphors, euphemisms and lots more sarcasm. Mostly because I find it more entertaining and enjoyable.
TL;DR: <Main point>
<Long explanation>
However, when writing comments on HN or other forums I go for what I call a "fireside chat" approach. Complete with metaphors, euphemisms and lots more sarcasm. Mostly because I find it more entertaining and enjoyable.
BLUF is great until you realize that people just want you to write "BLUF: ipsem lorem" and that is all they read, and then then you get the same problem of having to explain your email body to someone over and over again. I can't stand BLUF for anything besides the most simple asinine events that happen.
I reverse the order of every email I write before sending it. As in, I write it then put the last thing I wrote first, because it necessarily has more thought put into it. Same with paragraphs.
BLUF works when the power relationship between the speaker and listener/reader/writer was established prior to the communication.
BLUF works when the power relationship between the speaker and listener/reader/writer was established prior to the communication.
I think this style is great when action is required.
The "purpose at the top" principle could be useful even for scientists or artists, though.
For example:
Purpose of email: evaluate yesterday's experiment.
Unfortunately, yesterday's experiment's results were bullshit, because I forgot to recharge the carbon dioxide canisters ... (etc).
The "purpose at the top" principle could be useful even for scientists or artists, though.
For example:
Purpose of email: evaluate yesterday's experiment.
Unfortunately, yesterday's experiment's results were bullshit, because I forgot to recharge the carbon dioxide canisters ... (etc).
Sadly most sorce code follows the exact opposite convention - starting with legalese, followed by boring initialisation. I wish more source code would come to the point right at the start, and I am thankful for the new acronym BLUF that expresses this concept quite clearly.
Maybe in languages without declaration hoisting, you could go with BLOB: Bottom Line On Back.
A good video on writing that talks about similar ideas is https://youtu.be/vtIzMaLkCaM
This video is geared more towards academic writing, but, I've found it helpful even outside of that space.
This video is geared more towards academic writing, but, I've found it helpful even outside of that space.
This style is critical for effective remote work. I might steal or link it for our internal documentation.
So much time wasted 'handshaking' before an actual point is made before I can determine if I can spend time on the query or need to pass it on.
So much time wasted 'handshaking' before an actual point is made before I can determine if I can spend time on the query or need to pass it on.
There's a lot to be said for this style of writing, but I just hate the name. It should be Bottom Line Up TOP. Ok, that's pedantic, I know. But a standard for clear writing should not be named with a mixed metaphor, dammit!
So like, some sort of introduction that summarizes the rest of that paper? Next you'll be telling me they recommend organizing paragraphs according to argument or point and to end it with some sort of conclusion!
That is how also news articles should be written.
There should be a startup that uses machine learning to convert arbitrary fluff from the internet to BLUF format as a service.
I like emails that start with "If you are not interested in X, you can stop reading now."
Just like the early returns in programming.
Just like the early returns in programming.
The USAF has a similar manual. Google for "USAF Tongue Quill" and the PDF is the first result.
Great for 'red' type personalities. But for a green/yellow like me this is horrific
[deleted]
Doesn't sound too much different than traditional inverted pyramid news style.
Kind of ironic that a style meant to lay the cards on the table is called bluff.
1) be concise
2) give context
Write better, and be widely read. Good article.
Write better, and be widely read. Good article.
This is gold. Forwarded to all friends.
v/r
It's not a standard, it's the same as TLDR. The only difference is that it's before the content instead of after.
Yes, the key difference is that tl;dr is, by placement, a sort of self-effacing, humorous admission of self absorption while BLUF is all about teaching every member of a multi-million person organization to write empathically. Not bad for 4 letters. But, yes, if you just move the tl;dr to the top, that would be a great first step.
As a participant in this arena, I can say my observation has been that the real experts often omit the term BLUF because it gets in the way of their message. Omitting BLUF is not a sign of expertise. Far from it. But the really expert empaths know when to break the rules.
As a participant in this arena, I can say my observation has been that the real experts often omit the term BLUF because it gets in the way of their message. Omitting BLUF is not a sign of expertise. Far from it. But the really expert empaths know when to break the rules.
> It's not a standard, it's the same as TLDR
It is a standard, see elsewhere on this discussion.
It is a standard, see elsewhere on this discussion.
> BLUF is a military communications acronym—it stands for “bottom line up front”—that’s designed to enforce speed and clarity in reports and emails.
...thus following its own advice. One sentence in and I know what it's talking about.