Are longer posts just liked by google, or are they better for SERPS/SEO

[outwest]

I had a guy tell me his 2000 word articles, he posts, google LOVES those
since most spammers never do ones that long, so they classify them (at least in theory) way more favorably than shorter articles/posts

I would guess this does not fall into the SEO field, its more like "content" , and would be thrown into the same category as page update frequencies, etc

What has been your experience in this ? Are the longer posts worth the time they take to write? or is it still all about backlinks

[outwest]

So nobody does this? Everyone just posts 300-500 word posts/articles?

[cbrauer]

Longer posts are good, as long as you stay on topic on the content is relevent to your link. Backlinks are great but can kill your ranking if they are just posted randomly on sites that have nothing to do with the content on your site. Find sites that have the same keywords and relevent content as your site or niche and stay away from sites that don't. 50 backlinks from sites with relevent content to your site is better than 5000 links just posted randomly on sites. I have sites with 30 or 40 backlinks on page 1 of 5 major search engines with Alexa rankings in the top 15,000 to 40,000 in weight loss, seo, web design, and some other very competitive niches.

[MikeFriedman]

I have never written content for a website with any kind of artificial word count in mind, and I never will. I write what needs to be there.

If 2000 words is better than 500, then wouldn't 3000 be better than 2000? And why would I stop there? I could just write 10,000 and outrank all those slackers only writing 5,000.

[imdomination]

Since Panda especially, the longer the post the better. Generally, I try and have my main page have over 1200 words now, and all of my sub pages at least 600.

When I changed my current sites to fit this pattern they almost all went up in the SERPs.

[outwest]

Originally Posted by imdomination

Since Panda especially, the longer the post the better. Generally, I try and have my main page have over 1200 words now, and all of my sub pages at least 600.

When I changed my current sites to fit this pattern they almost all went up in the SERPs.

Thats interesting
how much did they go up

[xxxJamesxxx]

How do posts perform if they have say 200 words then a video?

James Scholes

[yukon]

Originally Posted by outwest

I had a guy tell me his 2000 word articles, he posts, google LOVES those
since most spammers never do ones that long, so they classify them (at least in theory) way more favorably than shorter articles/posts

I would guess this does not fall into the SEO field, its more like "content" , and would be thrown into the same category as page update frequencies, etc

What has been your experience in this ? Are the longer posts worth the time they take to write? or is it still all about backlinks

I think you would have better results with user experience & seo at the same time If you broke that 2,000 word article up into 3-4 pages, all 3-4 pages with links to each other on each page.

Google likes multiple internal pages 100% related to each other, plus you'll stand a better chance of Google adding jumplinks below the SERP description for the ranked page.

I'll take 3-4 links/pages ranked in the SERPs for a single keyword over a single ranked page any day of the week.

If you just post a single 2,000 word article, you'll be trying to get a single link in the SERPs, why put a limit on SERP links?

BTW, this is a solid technique that has been around for years & it still works in the SERPs today, it's not based on some post panda BS of the day, look up Bruce Clay (just saying).

[outwest]

Originally Posted by yukon

I think you would have better results with user experience & seo at the same time If you broke that 2,000 word article up into 3-4 pages, all 3-4 pages with links to each other on each page.

Google likes multiple internal pages 100% related to each other, plus you'll stand a better chance of Google adding jumplinks below the SERP description for the ranked page.

I'll take 3-4 links/pages ranked in the SERPs for a single keyword over a single ranked page any day of the week.

If you just post a single 2,000 word article, you'll be trying to get a single link in the SERPs, why put a limit on SERP links?

BTW, this a solid technique that has been around for years & it still works in the SERPs today, it's not based on some post panda BS of the day, look up Bruce Clay (just saying).

you took the thoughts right out of my head Yukon, not to that detailed extent but I thought, what if that 2000 words was just spread out over several pages, it might have more juice

[theebookcavern]

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

I have never written content for a website with any kind of artificial word count in mind, and I never will. I write what needs to be there.

If 2000 words is better than 500, then wouldn't 3000 be better than 2000? And why would I stop there? I could just write 10,000 and outrank all those slackers only writing 5,000.

Totally agree Mike. It saddens me a little how Google has forced writing to become so mechanical. Different topics require different word counts. For example, f I'm writing about an obscure nutrient 400-500 words will probably do the trick. If I'm writing about a summary article about 5 different nutrients that all fall under 1 group then 2,000+ words are often required.

As for success rates I have had success with long and short articles. The 2 most popular articles on my website are 500 words and 1,400 words so quite a contrast.

[MikeTheBuilder]

It doesn't matter what length the post are 500, 800, 2,000 etc.. What I find common to having longer post is the extra lsi keywords or long tails that end up bringing in more traffic.

My post come in whatever it takes to get the article finished..

[yukon]

Originally Posted by theebookcavern

Totally agree Mike. It saddens me a little how Google has forced writing to become so mechanical. Different topics require different word counts. For example, f I'm writing about an obscure nutrient 400-500 words will probably do the trick. If I'm writing about a summary article about 5 different nutrients that all fall under 1 group then 2,000+ words are often required.

As for success rates I have had success with long and short articles. The 2 most popular articles on my website are 500 words and 1,400 words so quite a contrast.

I don't think Google has taken that approach.

From what I've seen, Google rewards sites/pages that have characteristics of a book.

Here me out.

Google obviously considers these things important on a page:

• Title
• Heading (<h> tags)
• Sub Headings (<h> tags)
• TOC (Table of Contents (Jump links in the SERPs))

I'm not a professional book writer & don't claim to be, however I'm pretty sure most books don't have 2,000 or 10,000 words on a single page, more like 300-500 words per page. What a book does have in common with a web page & I think Google likes, they have multiple 100% related pages all grouped (linked) like chapters in book.

Call me crazy, but If you look at your site as a book, & structure accordingly I have no doubts Google will reward those pages in the SERPs. Of coarse the difference between a book & a web page is a web page needs external backlinks, but that's off-page seo & another subject.

BTW, who in the heck wants to read 2,000 words on a single page, I would get burnt out just scrolling the page. I know wikipedia has long pages but has anyone actually read an entire wikipedia page, I haven't, most times I'll bail when I need a break from scrolling the page. I say deliver content in bite size chunks that traffic can better focus on. Then again I could have ADHD & just not know it yet, lol.

[down]

I do a lot experiment about words content quantity, with same level optimized most page which have high rank on my website always page with articles more than 1000 words. But I believe every person have a different result.