BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

https://www.animalz.co/blog/bottom-line-up-front/

by jger15 • 7 years ago

416 129 7 years ago

dx87• 7 years ago

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.

outworlder• 7 years ago

It's not a standard, it's the same as TLDR

It is a standard, see elsewhere on this discussion.

derekp7• 7 years ago

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.

edw• 7 years ago

Much of my previous life:

— ut?

— Ugh what? [ Stare at screen for what feels like an hour. ]

— nvm

edoceo• 7 years ago

Q: "Got a minute?" A: "No"

Then close the app/tab and crank up that Led Zeppelin so you can GSD

lbotos• 7 years ago

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.

insulanus3• 7 years ago

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!)

baliex• 7 years ago

For that, there's this: http://www.nohello.com/2013/01/please-dont-say-just-hello-in....

shandor• 7 years ago

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

Buttons840• 7 years ago

I learned this from #python on irc.freenode.org.

"Don't ask to ask, just ask" is their rule, and the frequently repeat it.

kajmagnusmobile3• 7 years ago

What about replying with a link to this article :- )

Donald• 7 years ago

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”).

herdrick2• 7 years ago

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.

alexjm• 7 years ago

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.

jameshart2• 7 years ago

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.

rikroots• 7 years ago

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..."

jcurbo• 7 years ago

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...

Godel_unicode• 7 years ago

Of course the Army name is practical and descriptive, and the Air Force name is whimsical.

feedbeef• 7 years ago

As does CIA

https://fas.org/irp/cia/product/style.pdf

somacert• 7 years ago

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.

nvahalik• 7 years ago

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.

jacquesm• 7 years ago

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.

voidhorse• 7 years ago

Kind of ironic that a style meant to lay the cards on the table is called bluff.

kstrauser• 7 years ago

I appreciate that the first line of the article says:

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.

EForEndeavour• 7 years ago

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 powerful

SllX2• 7 years ago

You 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”.

weinzierl• 7 years ago

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.

HNLurker2• 7 years ago

kek

wrycoder• 7 years ago

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.

killjoywashere2• 7 years ago

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.

ska• 7 years ago

That works really well if it finishes with EOM or <eom>.

Otherwise it's unclear if there is missing content.

anotherevan3• 7 years ago

I use to do this (with an "EOM" on the end) but gmail doesn't lend itself well to this.

sitkack4• 7 years ago

this was a common msft corp email technique in the 90s. it worked really well<eom>

teddyh• 7 years ago

Sounds like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism)

yellowapple• 7 years ago

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.

DoreenMichele2• 7 years ago

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.

stebann• 7 years ago

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.

joe_the_user3• 7 years ago

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.

DoreenMichele2• 7 years ago

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."

austincheney• 7 years ago

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.

thesuperbigfrog3• 7 years ago

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.

Glyptodon• 7 years ago

Doesn't sound too much different than traditional inverted pyramid news style.

rdtsc• 7 years ago

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>

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.

tyingq• 7 years ago

The USAF has a similar manual. Google for "USAF Tongue Quill" and the PDF is the first result.

anotherevan3• 7 years ago

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.

sitkack4• 7 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism)

anotherevan3• 7 years ago

Yeah, I'm aware of that. I wish more journalists put it into practice though.

cryptonector• 7 years ago

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.

woliveirajr• 7 years ago

or make you view all the ads that appear in the page :)

incompatible• 7 years ago

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...

CalChris• 7 years ago

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.

kajmagnusmobile3• 7 years ago

That was an inductive style comment itself? :- ) at least not BLUF (it didn't start with "they should be fired")

fargle• 7 years ago

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.

bakery2k• 7 years ago

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.

or using BLUF:

    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.

I'm still not sure which structure would be the best choice in which situation. Are there any guidelines?

sitkack4• 7 years ago

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.

ryanmarsh• 7 years ago

Bottom line up front does seem a little like tl;dr up front.

TLDRUF?

torstenvl• 7 years ago

I think it's more like:

    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.

Imagine that your BLUF is a tweet announcing your findings and linking to a PDF of the rest of your e-mail.

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

(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).

Edmond• 7 years ago

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.

joe_the_user3• 7 years ago

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.

sandworm1013• 7 years ago

> 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]

ryacko2• 7 years ago

So how does powerpoint impact communication density?

thesuperbigfrog3• 7 years ago

> 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.

phaus2• 7 years ago

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.

alexis_fr• 7 years ago

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”...

lerxst00• 7 years ago

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.

m0zg• 7 years ago

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.

beloch• 7 years ago

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.

motohagiography• 7 years ago

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.

thesuperbigfrog3• 7 years ago

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.

vasili1112• 7 years ago

That is how also news articles should be written.

vasili1112• 7 years ago

Also look at Inverted pyramid (journalism): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism)

plutonorm• 7 years ago

Great for 'red' type personalities. But for a green/yellow like me this is horrific

Animats• 7 years ago

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...

stubish• 7 years ago

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.

hackerbabz• 7 years ago

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.

jessaustin2• 7 years ago

I always try to give my essays horror-movie-style conclusions, which creepily undermine everything that went before.

sowbug• 7 years ago

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.

c3534l• 7 years ago

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!

Stenzel• 7 years ago

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.

microcolonel• 7 years ago

Maybe in languages without declaration hoisting, you could go with BLOB: Bottom Line On Back.

seidlitz• 7 years ago

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.

ryacko2• 7 years ago

Often times people like to hear themselves speak and everyone forgets the point of communication.

webninja• 7 years ago

Communication can also be for relationship and community building

Readywater• 7 years ago

v/r

praptak• 7 years ago

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.

ece• 7 years ago

1) be concise 2) give context

Write better, and be widely read. Good article.

tempodox• 7 years ago

There should be a startup that uses machine learning to convert arbitrary fluff from the internet to BLUF format as a service.

blaesus2• 7 years ago

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...

blablabla1232• 7 years ago

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.

blaesus2• 7 years ago

Writing formulae are like design patterns. They give us names to think and talk about structures, but too often become dogmata.

miguelmota• 7 years ago

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.

cwp• 7 years ago

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!

insulanus3• 7 years ago

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).

edmoffo• 7 years ago

This is gold. Forwarded to all friends.

wery• 7 years ago

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.

BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

Related Stories