Why are note articles not being read? In an era where even writing has become a metagame [How to continue note / Essay / Blog / Side hustle writing]

"If I write high-quality articles, surely everyone will read them"

When I first started note, I thought that somewhere along the line.
I would think of themes in my own way, write sentences carefully, organize what I wanted to convey properly, and tidy them up to be easy to read.

If I did that, eventually the number of people reading would increase naturally.
Quality is justice after all.

But as I continued, I suddenly realized.
Whether a note is read is not determined solely by the quality of the article.

A problem that precedes the content of the article

Even before I started writing on note, I had doubts while reading.
Even if an article had many likes and comments, it didn't necessarily mean the content was dense with information or that the quality of the writing was high.

That said, what people look for and the criteria they use to evaluate things can vary.
I just brushed it off, thinking that perhaps my evaluation criteria were off and that this kind of thing might just be popular on note.

And so, this doubt turned into conviction when I read a certain article.
In the body of that note, there was only a single hiragana character written.
Just one character.
Yet, it had many likes and comments.

If I, as someone who had just started note, wrote an article with just one hiragana character in the same way.
If you asked me if it would get the same amount of likes, it wouldn't.

In other words, there is a story that precedes the content of the article.

More than the content, it was a question of "who wrote it," "in what context was it written," and "what is the relationship with the reader."
In short, the note medium is highly metagamed.

What is the "metagaming" of note?

Metagaming here, to put it roughly, is a state where the evaluation of an article has shifted to the outside of the article (the context).

Readers appear to be judging based on content like "is the writing good" or "is the content useful," but in reality, they have several criteria for judgment before that.

They have information outside the article, such as how much they know the person, what kind of impression has been built up from previous posts, and what kind of values this person writes with.

I feel this situation is quite similar to eating out.
Of course, the taste of the food is important. That is certain.

However, even with the same dish, the evaluation can change depending on the atmosphere of the restaurant, how the staff treats you, or the location.
In some cases, the evaluation can even be reversed, right?

Note articles are the same; while it may seem like the competition is solely based on "whether this article is good or bad," the context surrounding the article often determines success or failure.

Of course, this trend exists for personal blogs and other social media as well, but I feel that note is a medium where this tendency is particularly strong.

Representative examples of the meta-game happening outside the article

So, if we think specifically about what the meta-game on note is, there are probably many things running in parallel, and it likely differs greatly from person to person.
Here, I will list some representative ones.

(1) Trust balance (the feeling that it's safe to read this person's articles)

Note articles are heavily influenced by titles and thumbnails.
The decision of "whether to read" is made based on the impression when it catches the eye.
However, there is something before that, which is trust balance.

Things like having written good articles in the past, content that one can agree with, or liking the words this person weaves.
Having a large number of followers might also make it seem more credible.

When such things have already accumulated, it becomes easier for the reader to click on the article.

The "single hiragana character article" I mentioned as an example earlier is surely this.
The reason why even a single character can be evaluated is because a sufficient trust balance has been accumulated.

(2) Social capital (having exchange capital)

Next is mutual relationships (social capital).
This is the value of the relationships built so far.

Since note has significant social media elements, "relationships" cannot be ignored.
It can greatly affect whether there is a reaction.

Exchanging comments or interacting via DM.
Or even just having seen the author before counts as well.

When such relationships are built to a certain extent, the article is more likely to get initial traction.
Then, it becomes easier for it to reach more people through the note algorithm.

(3) Flow design (ease of being found)

The last one is flow design.
Even if the writing and content are good, it won't start if the article cannot be found.
There is a cruel aspect to this, but that is especially true for note.

Specific flow design includes whether the posting timing is appropriate, whether tags and titles align with search intent, and whether links to related articles are natural.

This kind of "entrance design" and "navigation design" is indeed becoming necessary.

The idea of "not relying too much on the power of the article alone"

There are aspects that are decided by the metagame in this way.
You might think that the quality of the writing has nothing to do with it then.

Honestly, there are times when I think that too.
However, that is not necessarily the case.

Because,even if you master the meta, that only gets you onto the playing field,
you see. Even if you only master the meta, if the content doesn't follow, eventually even that will stop working.

What's important is that, regardless of the entrance, in the end, I think it's aboutgaining trust through content.

The trust gained there becomes a "trust balance" that says, "If it's this person's article, it's safe to read," which becomes the motivation to open the next articleand becomes the motivation to open the next article.
And then, by being convinced by the content again, the trust increases.
I think a state where this cycle begins to rotate is one ideal form.

So, in my opinion, the closest thing to an ideal form is probably when someone with genuinely high writing ability manages to master the meta.

However, such people often do not master the meta.
That's because many people compete solely on the "quality of the article."
Perhaps they feel it's like an unconventional tactic and somehow unorthodox.

But in reality, for those who can write, I think there is a lot of room for the situation to change just by incorporating a little bit of design.

Summary: The reason why it is not read is often outside the article

As I have written so far, the reason why note is not read is not necessarily a problem with the content.
Rather, in many cases, it is decided bythings other than the quality of the article.

Just by adjusting the entrance and the relationship, there is room for the same text to be received differently.
Therefore, even if your article is not being read now, it is not necessarily the fault of the content, but a possibility of a structural problem.
Perhaps I want to tell my past self such things.

I would be happy if you could give it a like.
See you again.

Related Articles