500 word or 1000 word articles?

[AhmedA]

Hi,

I'm building my first adsense website and I'm outsourcing the content.

I'm not sure which is better to rank in google 500 word or 1000 word articles. Will it make a difference in the eyes of the search engines? 1000 word articles are expensive.

Ahmed

[Kauzmo]

Article length is nearly irrelevant. You need relevant content, something useful for your visitors.

[caseycase]

Originally Posted by Kauzmo

Article length is nearly irrelevant. You need relevant content, something useful for your visitors.

That is not entirely correct. 1000 word articles are definitely better from an SEO perspective. However, they should definitely be relevant and optimized, and that does not mean that 500 words will not be enough to get you ranked.

[Matt Baker]

I prefer use a 500-600 word articles so that it would be easy to optimize.

[yukon]

Originally Posted by AhmedA

Hi,

I'm building my first adsense website and I'm outsourcing the content.

I'm not sure which is better to rank in google 500 word or 1000 word articles. Will it make a difference in the eyes of the search engines? 1000 word articles are expensive.

Ahmed

If you break that 1,000 word article up into two pages that are 100% relevant to each other & with keyword internal linking, you'll stand a better chance at ranking two pages in Google SERPs for the same exact keyword, rather than a single page that consist of 1,000 words.

Let the two internal pages support each other.

Which would you rather have, one page or two pages ranking in the SERPs for a single keyword?

I choose two pages.

Just like anything in SEO, nothing is guaranteed. Still proper internal linking is half the work to get multiple pages ranked per single keyword.

[ProfJannes]

500 or a 1000 words, you can decide. However the article formatting is also important, adding some bullets and additional headings, don's just paste a bunch of text.

~ Jannes

[Nicky Papers]

From a search engine perspective it really doesn't make a difference as content relevancy is the more critical factor, regardless of content length on a per page basis.

Additionally, the length of your content (per page) should parallel your competition. Not sure how to evaluate the Top 10 results? Try using SERP IQ to make content evaluation easier.

I'd stick with the 500 word articles as you've indicated that you are price conscious. Reducing the article size from 1000 to 500 words will give you more opportunities to create new pages and URL structures to build links to which may lead to more pages indexed and the site ranking for more keywords that you are targeting.

[OO]

I've been hearing through seminars that longer is better due to panda updates

[Clint Faber]

We have a lot of experience in article creation and have tried many different tactics says for us the length and format of different articles and have found the following....

Anything below 500 words produces less authority in article directories intend to get harder to be indexed.

Anything close to 1000 words we tend to get no click through's in article directories.

Articles around 500 words enticing the user to want more information gets us 5 to 10 click through's per article in article directories and are seen as more relevant to search engines.

PDF documents are about the same although they are harder to track they seem to produce higher rankings in Google as well as more traffic from the document sharing sites as they have yet to be hit very hard by Internet marketers. (Just a assumption)

[WallyworldWf]

Originally Posted by yukon

If you break that 1,000 word article up into two pages that are 100% relevant to each other & with keyword internal linking, you'll stand a better chance at ranking two pages in Google SERPs...


Still proper internal linking is half the work to get multiple pages ranked per single keyword.

Any chance you can elaborate on this some?

Does this mean that on my secondary page that I have a sidebar linking to the home page?

or

Does this mean that my secondary page just has a reference to the main keyword of the site?

or

Does the secondary page have an actual link within the article itself that makes some reference to the first page?

thanks!

[amherstsowell]

Its Depend on your Topic if you topic finish in 500 so its okie otherwise if 600 700 no issue. main point is that explain your topic clearly. Normally its 500 to 600 is the minimum length or article.

[bikramksingh]

Keep it around 500-600 and make the formatting interesting to keep the visitors glued. Do not let it look text-heavy.

[SeoMonster1]

It does not varies whatever the size of your article is if the content is original, informative, easy to understand, well-structured, qualitative and more importantly maintain seo rules with proper keyword density.

[yukon]

Originally Posted by WallyworldWf

Any chance you can elaborate on this some?

Does the secondary page have an actual link within the article itself that makes some reference to the first page?

thanks!

Yes, cross linking highly relevant pages will help support the keywords that your targeting.

It doesn't have to be an Index page, it can be any page as long as it's 100% on topic with the page your linking to.

Example two internal page titles:



1) Automobile History - The History of Cars and Engines

Keyword = automobile history

2) The History of the Automobile - Steam Cars

Keyword = steam cars

Both pages above are 100% related to each other, with proper internal/external keyword anchor-text it's very likely they would both rank on page #1 for both keywords. So instead of having two pages ranked with two SERP listings you would have four listings in the SERPs.

The amount of external backlinks per page would totally depend on how tough the keyword competition is. The highly relevant internal linking sets the stage for better SERP listings, & lightens the load for external links.

It doesn't eliminate external backlinks, still it does produce very good SERP results especially considering the the amount of work isn't that much more than what you would already be doing anyways.

Planning ahead how you build your pages will defiantly bring in more free SERP traffic with little extra work.

You can also create small internal linking loops with your internal pages, to help get double & triple SERP listings (per keyword).

[packerfan]

Can everyone get just a dose of common sense please?

Go google online stopwatch. You'll see this site is ranked #1... Online Stopwatch.

Now, that page has like 300 words, and about 50% of those are links. Oh, did I mention it's sole purpose is a flash based app.

Here's how Google sees the site... Online Stopwatch


So, again, broad generalizations like 1000 being better than 500 are silly.

If it takes you 300 words, say it in 300 words. If it takes 3,000, then take 3,000.

However, I am in the camp of if you can break it into multiple documents and have it be a good user experience, do that. But to each their own.

[lancejeffersons]

I prefer 500-750 words on a article..It must informative, unique, fresh and have quality..Not just copied from other website..

[BigNorm]

500-600 word articles with the occasional 800 is what I am for. Anything longer people tend to switch off and lose interest. The idea is to not only keep your visitors reading the article but to follow through to other articles on your site as well. So when I tend to use two internal anchor texts both going to the next article. One using the keyword the article is optimized for and the second for the keyword the next article is optimized for. This way it's easier throwing in a hook to keep the read on the site.

[Dimagiba]

1000 word articles if best for SEO tecniques but is time consuming and if your paying for writing it will cost you a lot.

500-600 is fair for me.

[jkthomas]

you can hire me for content writing , i will be more effective for you.

[Crank]

It's hard to imagine any 500 words article that could provide some great answer on any subject, but the goal of an article marketing is usually to bring a visitor from article to a website, so...
And with the last update from Google - it states that there's more chances to get indexed all of your huge content now, so 1000 words (unique) should work well.

[WilsonJ]

Ive always preferred a word count of
600-800 for a regular blog post..
500-700 for a landing page..
1000-1200 for an article which is published on article directories or websites like squido, hubpage etc..
and so far it has worked well for me.
Anything below 500 is bad for me..

[SenTosch]

In my experience 700/800 word articles work best for me for ranking. Of course with the relevant h1, h2, h3 tags. Proper keyword density and all other onsite SEO. I also make sure to include other keywords in the article linking to other related posts.

[AlvinBasil]

500 to 1000 words are sufficient for an article and it is best for SEO techniques.

[MaryMartha]

above 500 words article best for ranking

[dchuk]

In a few weeks we'll be posting an article to the serpIQ.com blog that will share the data regarding the 1.5 million + URLs worth of data we've collected and specifically content length will be covered in one (we're covering about 10 different important metrics in individual posts).

I can share right now though, that anyone who says 500 words is all you need is not correct, it's much longer than that for most #1 results...

[cashtree]

Originally Posted by dchuk

In a few weeks we'll be posting an article to the serpIQ.com blog that will share the data regarding the 1.5 million + URLs worth of data we've collected and specifically content length will be covered in one (we're covering about 10 different important metrics in individual posts).

I can share right now though, that anyone who says 500 words is all you need is not correct, it's much longer than that for most #1 results...

Can you really use coloration as causation? Having data and stats is great, but it's not by any means be all end all.

[dchuk]

Originally Posted by cashtree

Can you really use coloration as causation? Having data and stats is great, but it's not by any means be all end all.

I totally agree, but it's hard to argue the fact that the median length of content for #1 results across the 160,000+ keywords we've had customers analyze is longer than 1500 words with something like 75% of #1 results having content longer than 500 words doesn't mean SOMETHING from the SEO perspective.

I'd much rather have someone tell me something and then hand me raw data and graphs than a panel of people asked their opinion instead.

[yukon]

Originally Posted by dchuk

In a few weeks we'll be posting an article to the serpIQ.com blog that will share the data regarding the 1.5 million + URLs worth of data we've collected and specifically content length will be covered in one (we're covering about 10 different important metrics in individual posts).

I can share right now though, that anyone who says 500 words is all you need is not correct, it's much longer than that for most #1 results...

So, is 5,000 words per page going to beat 500 words in the SERPs?

My point is, text quantity isn't going to rank a page.

[dchuk]

Originally Posted by yukon

So, is 5,000 words per page going to beat 500 words in the SERPs?

My point is, text quantity isn't going to rank a page.

well, I'm making my point backed with millions of data points, so I'm not exactly sure what else you're looking for here. I can just make up a number like everyone else in this thread or I can query my database and tell you definitively what hundreds of thousands of urls ranking on Google right now actually have going on.

If you're telling me the data we have doesn't prove anything, then you're going to need to provide something more than opinion to prove me wrong.

[getaloadathisguy]

Originally Posted by cashtree

Can you really use coloration as causation?

inb4 Dresden....

[yukon]

Originally Posted by dchuk

well, I'm making my point backed with millions of data points, so I'm not exactly sure what else you're looking for here. I can just make up a number like everyone else in this thread or I can query my database and tell you definitively what hundreds of thousands of urls ranking on Google right now actually have going on.

If you're telling me the data we have doesn't prove anything, then you're going to need to provide something more than opinion to prove me wrong.

Your data is skewed based on the fact that it's only directly associated with your product.

The majority of the net doesn't use your product.

Anyone that's been doing SEO longer than a month should already know you can rank a page with a single text word, heck even zero text, or an image.

Please don't turn this into next generation keyword stuffing/density, this forum gets enough of those questions already.

500 words is way more than enough text on a page, proof is in the real world organic SERPs. I'm not saying 500 should be a target number for the amount of text on a page, write normal, write pages that make sense, write pages that don't have the traffic looking for the browser Back button because their borderline comatose from reading thousands of words on a single page.

Common sense trumps data.

[dchuk]

Originally Posted by yukon

Your data is skewed based on the fact that it's only directly associated with your product.

The majority of the net doesn't use your product.

Anyone that's been doing SEO longer than a month should already know you can rank a page with a single text word, heck even zero text, or an image.

Please don't turn this into next generation keyword stuffing/density, this forum gets enough of those questions already.

500 words is way more than enough text on a page, proof is in the real world organic SERPs. I'm not saying 500 should be a target number for the amount of text on a page, write normal, write pages that make sense, write pages that don't have the traffic looking for the browser Back button because their borderline comatose from reading thousands of words on a single page.

Common sense trumps data.

You say in one breath that our SERP data isn't relevant at all and then say "proof is in the real world organic SERPs"? I am surprised I have to sit here and explain to you how you've twisted yourself around, but well, you're supporting my argument with yours at this point.

I know I have, what, 20 posts here, but I've been doing SEO for nearly 5 years now. My argument is laying on the table right now with a few million data points from real SERPs from real SEOs who are ranking for real keywords that actually matter (or else why would they be researching them) and you're really countering with "common sense" and opinion is all you need? I dare you to ask any SEO at all in the world whose side they'd choose in this situation.

SEO is a game of data, opinions don't matter. I can literally prove you wrong with a graph right now. I'm not arguing that you can't rank a site with a small amount of content, of course you can. But not all keywords are created equal. Try ranking for anything actually worth ranking for with no content and it simply won't happen.

This has nothing to do with keyword stuffing or density or any of that. Remember that little Panda thing? It was entirely about content. And you mean to tell me I have 1.5 million data points that are just...not relevant compared to your common sense? Come on man, stop spreading disinformation, it's what ruins the SEO community.

[satrap]

I personally as long as you get the message out and give the user the information you promised in your title, it won't matter how long your article is.

Now if you do have a... Say 1000 words article, I would go with what yukon was suggesting. From an SEo perspective it would make more sense to create two pages that support each other on a highly related term.

[getaloadathisguy]

Originally Posted by satrap

From an SEo perspective it would make more sense to create two pages that support each other on a highly related term.

Okay, coloration as causation aside, this is an agreeable quote about agreement.

[radivoj]

For the home page I always have about 1200-1500 word content but for the post pages about 500-600 word content for example you are targeting kw "acne treatment" you will put about 1200-1500 word's content for the home page as well optimized then you will create about 10 pages of post page content : what are acne, acne treatment for teens, natural acne treatment tips, How to treat acne, Can Exercise Clear Up Acne?, How to get rid of pimples, How you can prevent breakouts....and so on, but you can also optimized post page targeting long tail keyword's but if you are optimizing post page for long tail keyword for better results I would recommend at least 1K word content instead 500-600...That's how I do and always have good results...

[yukon]

Originally Posted by dchuk

You say in one breath that our SERP data isn't relevant at all and then say "proof is in the real world organic SERPs"? I am surprised I have to sit here and explain to you how you've twisted yourself around, but well, you're supporting my argument with yours at this point.

I know I have, what, 20 posts here, but I've been doing SEO for nearly 5 years now. My argument is laying on the table right now with a few million data points from real SERPs from real SEOs who are ranking for real keywords that actually matter (or else why would they be researching them) and you're really countering with "common sense" and opinion is all you need? I dare you to ask any SEO at all in the world whose side they'd choose in this situation.

SEO is a game of data, opinions don't matter. I can literally prove you wrong with a graph right now. I'm not arguing that you can't rank a site with a small amount of content, of course you can. But not all keywords are created equal. Try ranking for anything actually worth ranking for with no content and it simply won't happen.

This has nothing to do with keyword stuffing or density or any of that. Remember that little Panda thing? It was entirely about content. And you mean to tell me I have 1.5 million data points that are just...not relevant compared to your common sense? Come on man, stop spreading disinformation, it's what ruins the SEO community.

Really?

This ranks #1 in Google organic SERPs for the keyword cheap auto insurance, the content text count is 317 words. The rest of the ranked page is anchor-text & random <h> tag text. Someone should tell that #1 ranked site/page their doing it wrong.

Prove me wrong, with your data graph.

[socialbookmark]

I think there is not any special rules for number of words for writing articles. I have seen some articles with 350 words which are ranking well and some others are 800 words and rank well too. Ranking depends on many factors and article length is one of them. For example it depends on the website you publish your article to. If you publish your article in an authority site, it probably ranks in top results of Google whether its 350, 500 or 1,000 words.

[getaloadathisguy]

Originally Posted by socialbookmark

I think there is not any special rules for number of words for writing articles. I have seen some articles with 350 words which are ranking well and some others are 800 words and rank well too. Ranking depends on many factors and article length is one of them. For example it depends on the website you publish your article to. If you publish your article in an authority site, it probably ranks in top results of Google whether its 350, 500 or 1,000 words.

Not sure if I can trust a guy who can't spell "revenue".

[dchuk]

Originally Posted by yukon

Really?

This ranks #1 in Google organic SERPs for the keyword cheap auto insurance, the content text count is 317 words. The rest of the ranked page is anchor-text & random <h> tag text. Someone should tell that #1 ranked site/page their doing it wrong.

Prove me wrong, with your data graph.

alright, clearly I must be wrong. All you need to prove any fact in SEO is a single example, and obviously given your post count you are always 300x more correct than I am so I'll just go ahead and let you continue to live in your dream world.

In the meantime, I'm gonna go back to being a professional SEO who analyzes data in the aggregate and makes informed decisions based on actual analysis and research. I'll just be sure to not share any of that data that literally no one else in the world has with you because you've already got it all figured out.

I mean, if someone approached me with 150,000 examples of something, I'd always still lean towards that outlier example because the internet isn't that big and it's really hard to find an example for any possible thing.

Extra fun stuff: http://www.mypokerbasics.com/ ranks #1 for "how to play poker" with a content length of over 1500 words. So....yeah, according to the made up science of your world, that now proves my point again. Want to keep this tango going? All those little graphs I have leave me well equipped to prove you wrong over and over and over

[kaedus]

Originally Posted by yukon

Really?

This ranks #1 in Google organic SERPs for the keyword cheap auto insurance, the content text count is 317 words. The rest of the ranked page is anchor-text & random <h> tag text. Someone should tell that #1 ranked site/page their doing it wrong.

Prove me wrong, with your data graph.

And this site is ranking for 'buy viagra' and has over 3,000 words of content on the ranking page:
Buy Viagra | Generic Viagra| Quality Generic Drugs at Online Pharmacy - MedExpressRx.com

Therefore, by your logic of pulling random examples that disprove one argument, you are wrong. We can go back and forth all day and pull one-off examples that disprove whatever point you are trying to make. There are always exceptions to the rule.

I think the point you are missing is that with the data serpIQ is offering to share, you can see general patterns on how things rank, not the outliers. I would rather do what 90% of the #1 ranking sites are doing instead of doing what the 10% of sites that might be ranking number one are doing that no one else is doing.

Aggregate data is much more powerful than one-off examples. It's the same reason that whenever there is a large algo change, people get together and say "These are the types of links I was building, the velocity I was building, anchor text percentages, etc" and they share information with each to try and figure out why their sites either dropped or jumped in rank. That is aggregate data and because we don't have access to Google's algorithm, it's the best way to tell what works.

Just because people aren't as active as you on here doesn't mean that they don't know how to do SEO. It probably means they just spend more of their time actually ranking sites.

[windjc]

LOL @ the idea that because one #1 site has 317 words of content, that this means content doesn't really matter.

You have got to be kidding me, right?

...Right?

All I know is that Dchuk has created an incredible system for culling though massive serp data, and when he says the average #1 site has over 1200 words of content, that means something to people that actually make money in SEO.

Not to mention the fact that 85%+ of all searches are random long tail. And last time, I checked, getting long tail had something do to with c o n t e n t.

But that's ok. Don't join the party. The rest of us will just pay too much for all those unnecessary words on our sites that just get in the way of getting traffic.

[karamarius]

In my own understanding, the longer the better.. Cheers!

[yukon]

Originally Posted by kaedus

And this site is ranking for 'buy viagra' and has over 3,000 words of content on the ranking page:
Buy Viagra | Generic Viagra| Quality Generic Drugs at Online Pharmacy - MedExpressRx.com

Therefore, by your logic of pulling random examples that disprove one argument, you are wrong. We can go back and forth all day and pull one-off examples that disprove whatever point you are trying to make. There are always exceptions to the rule.

I think the point you are missing is that with the data serpIQ is offering to share, you can see general patterns on how things rank, not the outliers. I would rather do what 90% of the #1 ranking sites are doing instead of doing what the 10% of sites that might be ranking number one are doing that no one else is doing.

Aggregate data is much more powerful than one-off examples. It's the same reason that whenever there is a large algo change, people get together and say "These are the types of links I was building, the velocity I was building, anchor text percentages, etc" and they share information with each to try and figure out why their sites either dropped or jumped in rank. That is aggregate data and because we don't have access to Google's algorithm, it's the best way to tell what works.

Just because people aren't as active as you on here doesn't mean that they don't know how to do SEO. It probably means they just spend more of their time actually ranking sites.

LMAO!

I could care less how many post anyone on this forum or any other forum on the net has, both you & dchuk are the only two who have mentioned post counts, so obviously you both are having shallow thoughts.

Your way off If you think that 0.00000000001% data represents the internet as a whole.

I've already proven that dchuk is wrong saying a page needs more text than 500 words. That took me like 20 seconds to find in the SERPs with a random keyword.

Do I need to prove the Earth is round?

[yukon]

Originally Posted by dchuk

alright, clearly I must be wrong. All you need to prove any fact in SEO is a single example, and obviously given your post count you are always 300x more correct than I am so I'll just go ahead and let you continue to live in your dream world.

In the meantime, I'm gonna go back to being a professional SEO who analyzes data in the aggregate and makes informed decisions based on actual analysis and research. I'll just be sure to not share any of that data that literally no one else in the world has with you because you've already got it all figured out.

I mean, if someone approached me with 150,000 examples of something, I'd always still lean towards that outlier example because the internet isn't that big and it's really hard to find an example for any possible thing.

Extra fun stuff: Play Poker - How to Play Poker in 2012 - My Poker Basics ranks #1 for "how to play poker" with a content length of over 1500 words. So....yeah, according to the made up science of your world, that now proves my point again. Want to keep this tango going? All those little graphs I have leave me well equipped to prove you wrong over and over and over

Like I said before, you & the other guy above are the only two on this thread with the shallow forum post count comments. Nobody cares about your post count numbers, let it go, lol.

I already proved your 1,000 word content (or whatever exact number over 500 words) theory is wrong.

The amount of text on a page doesn't rank a page.

Your only confusing new IMers.

[Shadowflux]

I write for a lot of clients.

The majority of the orders I receive are for 500 words. I sometimes get some orders for 700 words and rarely for 1000.

If I were to suggest a length I would say 500 for two reasons:

1. 500 word articles are long enough to cover a certain topic without the need for any fluff or filler.

2. 500 word articles are much more readable for real people. I think people are more likely to read the entirety of a 500 word article than a 1000 word article.

Having said that, however, I think "Featured Posts" can stand to be a bit longer. Articles dealing with very technical things or articles that are meant to be instructional (like tutorials etc) can stand to be longer as well.

I hope that helps!

[windjc]

Originally Posted by yukon

Really?

This ranks #1 in Google organic SERPs for the keyword cheap auto insurance, the content text count is 317 words. The rest of the ranked page is anchor-text & random <h> tag text. Someone should tell that #1 ranked site/page their doing it wrong.

Prove me wrong, with your data graph.

What? The #1 organic search site is cheapcarinsurance dot net, a website whose index page has 614 words of content, more than any other site above the fold. Is this your argument?

I mean your argument is ridiculous to begin with, but at least if you are going to find an "exception" to the rules of content, then find an exception.

[yukon]

Originally Posted by windjc

LOL @ the idea that because one #1 site has 317 words of content, that this means content doesn't really matter.

You have got to be kidding me, right?

...Right?

All I know is that Dchuk has created an incredible system for culling though massive serp data, and when he says the average #1 site has over 1200 words of content, that means something to people that actually make money in SEO.

Not to mention the fact that 85%+ of all searches are random long tail. And last time, I checked, getting long tail had something do to with c o n t e n t.

But that's ok. Don't join the party. The rest of us will just pay too much for all those unnecessary words on our sites that just get in the way of getting traffic.

Seriously, don't be duped by a promotional ($$) forum comment.

[yukon]

Originally Posted by windjc

What? The #1 organic search site is cheapcarinsurance dot net, a website whose index page has 614 words of content, more than any other site above the fold. Is this your argument?

I mean your argument is ridiculous to begin with, but at least if you are going to find an "exception" to the rules of content, then find an exception.

Lol, so now the new theory is 614 words is the magic SEO number to get a page ranked at #1 on page #1 in the SERPs?

Classic!

[windjc]

Originally Posted by yukon

Like I said before, you & the other guy above are the only two on this thread with the shallow forum post count comments. Nobody cares about your post count numbers, let it go, lol.

I already proved your 1,000 word content (or whatever exact number over 500 words) theory is wrong.

The amount of text on a page doesn't rank a page.

Your only confusing new IMers.

You are creating a strawman argument. Dchuk didn't say content alone ranks a page. But what he IS saying, which is obvious to the rest of us, is that content is a VERY important factor. And if you are interested in out ranking competitors, having more quality LSI content on each page of your site is a good - very good - place to start. More and better content, more and better links, more and better link juice, more and better relevant domain names, etc. etc.

Content is still king. After panda, more than ever.

[windjc]

Originally Posted by yukon

Seriously, don't be duped by a promotional ($$) forum comment.

Really? Really?

Let me tell you about Dchuk's "promotional" comment. His tool was the first one I used to analyze a niche 6 months ago. I took the information regarding content and links and age authority of the top sites in my niche. 2 weeks later I started building that site. 5 1/2 months later I sold that site for over a $150k profit. From scratch.

And you are telling me not to be "duped"?

Maybe you would like to explain to me a little better so we can all understand.