A related question: If I have a large topic to cover, should I cover it in one post, or split it up along convenient cleavage planes and make it a sequence? (If I make sequences, I think I’ll learn my lesson from the last one I tried and write it all before posting anything, so I don’t post 2⁄3 of it and then stop.)
Long posts are more offputting than short ones, and individual steps are more likely to be correct than entire theorems—both of these points would suggest posting sequences preferentially.
A related question: If I have a large topic to cover, should I cover it in one post, or split it up along convenient cleavage planes and make it a sequence? (If I make sequences, I think I’ll learn my lesson from the last one I tried and write it all before posting anything, so I don’t post 2⁄3 of it and then stop.)
I really like the “sequences” approach—it’s easier to read and digest a chunk at a time, and it focusses discussion well, too.
Long posts are more offputting than short ones, and individual steps are more likely to be correct than entire theorems—both of these points would suggest posting sequences preferentially.
As for a specific reference on length: thirty-three hundred words sharply focused on a single, vivid subject is pushing the upper limit of what I find comfortable to attack in a single sitting.
Posting 2⁄3 of a sequence and stopping is fine if people turn out not to be interested. I recommend fast posting and fast feedback.