I'm one to talk

I think what I am most proud of is how natural I am able to get my writing. I've read other's works and some of them are natural, some feel more monotone, and others give an uncanny feeling. From start to finish, I feel like I am able to keep a natural tone throughout and it fits into the looser, less serious style of writing I tend to do as well.

My favorite part about what we learned was everything about content strategy. From the different groups of content and how they can be applied, to how if a user has a different goal the entire strategy can be flipped upside down. Looking at strategies and coming up with different ones for different situations was fun to do and fun to learn, and I'm glad I get to keep working with this into the future.

I won't lie. My favorite part is seeing the graphs in action. It was surprising to me to see how much the numbers were laid out once they were put into a visual space and then figuring out the patters was like solving a puzzle. As I first wrote my data analysis, I was able to pick up on more and more small details and then write about them as I went.

The concern is that this is my entire conclusion, and it doesn't feel long enough to be a conclusion. This paper isn't short, and this is the smallest of all the sections which is why it feels like it garners so much attention. So while this isn't about my writing itself, my question is does this conclusion seem to suffice as a conclusion? I hit all the points I wanted, and I don't like adding fluff.

An top of that, most popular graphic programs are ones where multiple people are working on the same file at the same time, such as Canva and Figma (which is growing quickly in popularity in the professional world).

The second thing I learned is that my drafting process doesn't really look like a typical drafting process. As I write my sentences, I grammar check them after finishing every one, rather than going back once I'm done. So how does this help after college? Firstly, many companies and whatnot have tight deadlines, so at least I know I will work well under that pressure. The second part, I don't know exactly, but it is something I noticed as I was drafting.

There are two things with the style. The first is the vocabulary used. A lot of terms are things that are common in the art community, as this is a research question based around that community. Another is the physical style of the paper itself. I'm using InDesign specifically because I want the Graphic Design element to reflect what is in the paper. If this is a paper about artists, why shouldn't it look like an artist made it?

This is the same revision process I've had for a while, although not quite as in depth with the first part of the revision. It helps me with short writing and with making cover letters and such, but I don't know how much it will help in my future classes as there is little to no writing, or the professor doesn't specialize in it and that isn't what they are looking for. I hope this revision process become more second nature rather than something I actively think about so it can be part of my every day posts and writings.

My final revision process goes through two different ways. The first is taking all the "writing" from before and rewriting it not in a way of trying to get all the information down, as before, but in a digestible way for the reader. The second revision is then going through piece by piece and making sure I answered all the questions and made sure to explain all points and methods necessary for this assignment.

Because my research question is so narrow in exactly what formats I'm looking for, I was able to get an answer easily, although it brought up more questions as to why and how. These two questions were much more difficult to answer and helped further explain and get a more concrete answer to my research question.

There are three most important pieces of data, the ratio of engagement to views, as that shows the data of engagement without having to worry about how the algorithm affected it, and whether or not the content was a video or image. This data is directly related to my research question and hypothesis. But while doing the research I learned there was more data that needed to be collected. Some more elements that mattered were the type of video being taken, mostly whether or not it was a timelapse of art or not, as it was timelapses that created the biggest and most notable change in the data.

For one graph in particular, I've showed the evolution of adding and subtracting data from it because of different variables that may skew the results. The first included all information, and showed a lot of different possible answers, so the information was narrowed down and in doing so it split into two graphs to show why the information had to be split further.

When looking at data, there are a lot of variables that can affect the outcome when looking at levels of engagement. Right now, I have a lot of these variables blocked off into larger groups since they aren't important to the research question but may still affect it. My question is, would it be smarter to completely put those variables aside or to consider them within my final question? I do have them in my data so that I can go either way. Could I even answer the question differently based on how those variables may affect the data, basically answering the question twice?

Unlike last time, there won't be any line graphs as I'm not looking at over time. Instead, this is going to be based on bar graphs, the most prominent ones being the difference between engagement with images versus videos, and the different types of engagement that go with them. Within there are also different types of content within the way the content is presented (such as personal, fan work, original work, and marketing), and I want to see if that will affect the outcome as well and show at least two graphs for that.