[inquist]

That first anecdote in the article is relevant, and the article does eventually get to talking about Google. This is the nature of long-form, it doesn't have to dive straight in.

[Touche]

Titles are important. They not only tell you what an article is about, but also the form the article takes.

Using "What" in the title was a mistake here. When you see "What" you expect mostly facts, mostly findings. If they had titled it with "How" I would have been more prepared for a lack of immediate answer. "How" denotes that an explanation is needed, and backstory is often necessary in explaining.

Titles are especially important on the web because links only have titles. There's no other context to which you can get an idea of what you're getting into. It's not like in newspapers where you have the context of what section an article is in or visually see how long it is from a glance.

[wpietri]

If you're looking for ways to prepare, at the top of the page, it also says, "The New York Times Magazine", which has been known for long-form journalism for more than 100 years.

[thaumasiotes]

> This is the nature of long-form

Let's not confuse long-form "there's a lot to be said here" with long-form "we really like padding".

[mdellabitta]

"The story of computing begins roughly 4000 years ago..."

[stuxnet79]

There is so much content online, and readers are so fickle that it makes too much sense to me for writers to be as concise and straight to the point as possible. I read the article on the subway train so I didn't have much else to do but if this was a tab I was glancing over at work I wouldn't have made it past the first paragraph.