TL;DR: I just hit 60 dev.to articles in 60 days. The previous article (#60) celebrated it. This one is the counter-take: volume is a vanity metric, and chasing it cost me sleep + 3-5 articles I wish I'd written better. Here's what I'd optimize for instead if starting over.
The contrarian case against article volume
Article volume is a vanity metric. Here's why:
1. It's a goal that rewards quantity over depth
When you set "60 articles in 60 days," you optimize for hitting 60. Not for writing the best 60. The threshold becomes the threshold.
I shipped 4 articles I knew were thin because I was at Day 56 and behind. Those articles didn't compound. They added noise.
2. The compound favors deep, not many
dev.to's algorithm + Google's algorithm both reward articles with:
- Long dwell time
- Multiple cross-links inbound
- Organic backlinks
- Reactions / comments / shares
Volume optimizes for none of these. A few well-crafted, deeply researched articles will compound 10x more than 60 surface-level ones.
3. Writing under pressure produces formulaic writing
If you have to ship 1 article per day, you'll find a formula. Then you'll formulaically apply it. Then your articles become indistinguishable.
My top 5 articles by engagement were the ones I wrote slowly, in 3-5 hour stretches, not the daily 30-min churns.
4. Volume gets confused with strategy
"I shipped 60 articles in 60 days" sounds strategic. It's actually a brag.
The actual strategy is: which channels matter, which audiences matter, which conversion path matters. Article volume is downstream of strategy, not upstream.
What I'd optimize for instead
Article 1: "search compound" articles
Dedicate 4-8 hours per article. Pick a search term I want to rank for in 6 months. Write the deepest article on that topic that exists.
Target: 12 such articles in 60 days, not 60 articles.
Article 2: "list/comparison" articles
The most-shared content in indie hacker space is "12 tools I use" or "X vs Y". They invite comparison + opinion.
Target: 6 such articles in 60 days.
Article 3: "data dumps"
Real numbers, real pricing, real outcomes. People love seeing what someone actually paid + earned.
Target: 4 such articles in 60 days.
Total: 22 articles in 60 days
22 articles instead of 60. Each one 3-8 hours. Each one designed to compound.
I'd probably get 60-80% of the cumulative views with 35% of the time investment.
Why I still wrote 60
I committed publicly. Backing out felt cowardly.
Lesson: Don't commit to volume metrics publicly. Commit to a quality bar instead.
"I'll write the best 22 indie articles I can in 60 days" doesn't have the meme appeal of "60 articles 60 days." But it's the better goal.
What this article does
By writing the contrarian counter to my own milestone article, I:
- Show authentic learning (people respect post-mortems)
- Get better engagement (controversy > celebration)
- Save anyone reading from copying my mistake
- Demonstrate depth (the kind of article worth ranking)
This article will probably outperform article #60.
The real metric
If you want to set ONE indie content goal:
"I will write 1 deeply-researched, deeply-cross-linked article per week for 12 weeks."
12 weeks × 1 article = 12 articles. Each one 4-8 hours. Each one worth Googling.
By Month 4 you'll have 12 articles ranked in Google. Compared to my 60 articles where maybe 3 will rank.
Source
Full automation pipeline (paste-ready frontmatter + dev.to REST API publisher + retry):
AutoApp Dashboard ($39) — but consider whether you actually need it. If your goal is depth not volume, you might not.
iOS Indie Launch Playbook ($19) — the field-tested playbook from 60 days of indie iOS dev experiment, including the "what I'd skip" section.
If you read article #60 and felt the urge to also do "X articles in X days," read this twice. The compound is in depth, not volume.
Top comments (0)