写作方法2019animalz.co编辑精选
BLUF：让写作更有力的军方标准
BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful
导读
这篇文章介绍美军的 BLUF（Bottom Line Up Front，结论先行）写作规范：在报告和邮件开头第一句就说出核心结论，再展开细节。对写作者来说，它提供了一个可立刻上手的结构工具，也提醒我们：读者最稀缺的是注意力，不要让他们为了弄懂你的意思而反复寻找。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
把结论放在第一句，让读者读完第一行就知道你要说什么、要他做什么。
- 02
用主动语态和具体的人称写句子，比如直接说"你有资格领取跳伞补贴"，而不是堆砌抽象名词。
- 03
像写论文摘要一样为长文写一个开头：先说明这篇讨论什么问题、结论是什么，再开始论证。
- 04
给同事发消息时先讲清楚问题和需求，不要用"有空吗"这种开场白把对方拉出工作状态。
HN 评论精选
开头第一句就把定义和目的讲清，是文章自身最好的示范。
我很欣赏文章的第一句就是："BLUF 是一个军事通信缩写，意思是'结论先行'，目的是让报告和邮件更快、更清晰。"——它自己就在践行自己的建议。读一句话我就知道它在讲什么了。
kstrauser查看英文原文
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.
结论先行配合主动语态，是有官方规范支撑的明确标准。
美军对这套风格有明文标准：陆军条例 25-50 第四部分"陆军写作风格"要求"陆军写作应简洁、有条理、切中要害。两项基本要求是：把主要观点放在文首（结论先行），以及使用主动语态（例如：'你有资格领取去年参加训练期间的跳伞补贴'）。"
Donald查看英文原文
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.pdf > 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”).
读者是用摘要来决定是否投入时间的，没有结论的长文会直接失去读者。
学术论文摘要的逻辑类似，只是目的略有不同：论文多、读起来费时，研究者需要先判断这篇是否与自己相关，再决定是否投入时间。我已经习惯用这个标准要求所有想让我读其文字的人。如果有人发给我类似文中"BLUF 之前"那种消息，我会很恼火。Hacker News 上有不少长文既不讲结论先行，结尾几段也没有任何总结，只有含糊的标题党标题，读到第三四段才发现它在极慢地揭示观点，甚至根本没有观点。我拉到最底下，发现最后几段只是漫谈，只好放弃，去看评论区——结果很多人也只是在评论标题，同样没搞懂文章在说什么。这让我非常生气。抱歉，发泄一下。
beloch查看英文原文
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.
即时消息也应结论先行：先说问题，再问对方是否有空。
这点很触动我：有人发消息只写一句"有空吗？"，一下把我从专注状态里拽出来。等我回复了，又完全不知道他要讲多久（可能三十秒，也可能十分钟——我好几次等了十分钟，然后起身去开会，对方还因为我不回复而不高兴）。我更希望他先把问题说清楚，这样我至少能给出答案，然后回去干活。
derekp7查看英文原文
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.
同类还值得读
被低估的工程技能：把文章写好
Undervalued Engineering Skills: Writing Well
这篇文章讨论为什么“写得好”是被低估的工程能力，以及它如何在团队协作、系统设计和职业发展中持续带来回报。
写作方法2019 · 1,109 分 · 371 评4 条写作要点编辑精选每行只写一句话：让写作和修改都更轻松的排版法
Writing one sentence per line
这是 Derek Sivers 的一篇短文，主张写作时每行只放一个句子，而不是按段落排版。
写作方法2022 · 849 分 · 297 评4 条写作要点编辑精选书面沟通是远程工作的超级能力
Written communication is remote work super power
这篇文章讨论远程工作中书面沟通的价值，评论区则补充了异步与同步沟通的适用场景，并提醒读者：备忘录、结论先行、结构化命令格式等书面沟通传统早已有之。
写作方法2020 · 831 分 · 190 评4 条写作要点编辑精选如何写出有用的文字
How to Write Usefully
保罗·格雷厄姆在这篇文章里给"有用的写作"下了一个可操作的公式：有用≈重要×新颖×正确×清楚，任一项为零，整篇文章就等于零；他还主张敢下确定判断、删掉让自己心虚的句子。
写作方法2020 · 821 分 · 285 评4 条写作要点编辑精选如何写得更清楚、想得更清楚，并学会复杂材料（PDF）
How to write more clearly, think more clearly, and learn complex material [pdf]
这份 PDF 讨论如何把文章写清楚、把思路理清楚，并用写作来学习复杂材料。
写作方法2022 · 779 分 · 153 评4 条写作要点编辑精选