Long Articles VS Short Articles: No, no, not about that topic again

[Asher]

Hi Warriors,

I've read about the pros and cons of long articles (1000+ words)
and short articles (250-400 words). Am I right about these?

Short Articles:
===========
+ People friendly
+ Easy to write
+ Quick information

- Not so search engine friendly


Long Articles:
==========
+ Search Engine Friendly
+ Excellent for blogs and sites
+ Can break down the large article and submit to directories
+ Requires a certain amount of knowledge/research into
the subject matter

- May not be people friendly due to large content

Is that about right? So if I have a huge, long article post that's
about 1000+ words and above, I should have that on my blog
or site instead of submitting to article directories.

Breaking apart that big article and sending it to the directories
in smaller portions will be allowed since it's not duplicate content
and it has the potential to bring in people from the article
directories.

Likewise, since you have the big article on your site, search
engines like it and you get organic rankings for it.

Thus, quite a win-win situation.

Asher

[kenj]

This is an interesting point Asher

I am trying out some 800 word articles both in directories and on my most visited blog. I think there will be some merit for long articles if it really takes that long to say what you want to say.

If you are stretching it out to make up the numbers then the human reader will not complete reading it.

If you can hold you reader's attention for that long then you are probably a very good writer.

[Allen Graves]

800 word articles are much better to write and submit than 250 worders. They rank higher and longer in the search engines, among other things.

AL

[Zulfus]

I think as long as you hold interest and can leave the reader wanting more it doesn't matter how long your article is. Sure it'll take more effort, and a higher quality article to achieve that with a longer one - But with that surely you get the best of both worlds right?

Zul

[Asher]

Well, a long article may be able to hold the reader and that depends
on 2 factors - the reader and the writer. It may not be that the writer's
very good - the reader may be looking for an answer and willing to
take the time to sift through all the data to get what he/she wants.

There are times when I make a post and I realize that it's about 1000
words long. Having heard about shorter posts being better, I promptly
broke it down into smaller, bite size pieces.

Now that I know a bit more about SEO (I'm still learning), I'm
wondering about whether having long articles can be more significantly
beneficial because you're drawing organic or search engine traffic
directly to your site. The drawback about it is if you don't have a
visitor base who are used to long posts from you, you might not
be retaining them.

Shorter posts and articles however, are more favored by some people
because it's easier to digest. Thing is, since what I've learnt is to
submit shorter, more compact, articles to article directories, they
are more "people friendly" and thus, if my compact little article was
good enough, the people who read it reward me by clicking on my
URL link but provided that they have to go through a 4 step process
instead of 2.
Meaning: Search Engine > Article Directory > My Article > My Site
whereas long articles that are more search engine friendly are:
Search Engine > My Site

Asher

[TKO]

The importance shouldn't be place on the length of your article, but on the amount of clicks your URL gets. Through my own testing, I totally agree with Allen, an article with 800 words or so will float around the top of the SERPs for longer. If you can also engage your reader to press on your link, your laughing. Just my 2 cents....

[Asher]

Originally Posted by TKO

The importance shouldn't be place on the length of your article, but on the amount of clicks your URL gets. Through my own testing, I totally agree with Allen, an article with 800 words or so will float around the top of the SERPs for longer. If you can also engage your reader to press on your link, your laughing. Just my 2 cents....

That's the thing I'm wondering about.

If the focus is on getting clicks, short articles tend to have a better
ratio from what I've read.

If the focus is on SERP, long articles are better.

Okay, maybe I'm confusing myself. In a scenario like this, which is
more beneficial?

1000 x 300 word articles = higher click through / not so much SEO?

300 x 1000 word articles = lower click though / higher SEO?

That's what I'm wondering. If all things being equal, would article
length matter or not?

Asher

[Allen Graves]

There are too many variables to answer your question Asher. My response above was a generalization of what I have seen over the years and even today.

AL

[Paul Myers]

Asher,

When I saw the title, I thought this was going to be another one of those stupid posts about how things have to be short to pander to the alleged "short attention span" of the "average person."

Majorly wrong. Excellent post and useful questions.

I think the answer will be different for each person. That is, it will depend on the writer's skill with SEO and their ability to engage the reader and say something that is both useful and interesting.

Most people will fall at one end or the other of the spectrum, with few in the middle. I say that because, in my experience, there's a broad gap between skill levels, and only a very few living inside that gap. Those people tend to be students of writing, and consistently improving, so they'll move pretty quickly toward the higher skill levels.

Sloppy or just plain bad writers will almost always do better with short articles. They tend to make it easier for people to forgive bad writing. Not as much opportunity to test their endurance.

Good writers will choose based on their own talents and preferences, and can make either length work.


Paul

[freudianslip27]

I would personally rather submit an article that's shorter length, so I have a better chance at getting clicks and then compensate by doing some promotion of the actual article itself, to help it perform better in the search engines.

Matt

[Asher]

Originally Posted by Allen Graves

There are too many variables to answer your question Asher. My response above was a generalization of what I have seen over the years and even today.

AL

Hi Allen,

I understand the generalization of it and I also understand that there
are many variables.

Let's say for the sake of this topic, there are 2 writers on the exact
same topic. They reach to the same market. They may not know
each other but these 2 writers have about the same level of skill
and knowledge with article marketing. They also generate articles at
about the same speed.

Everything's about equal. Except that one does 300 word articles
and the other, 1000 word articles.

In the long run (because that's how I perceive article marketing as
being really helpful), who would benefit more?

I don't have years of experience of article marketing, that's why I'm
asking this question to find out from those who already do.

Asher

[Asher]

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Asher,

When I saw the title, I thought this was going to be another one of those stupid posts about how things have to be short to pander to the alleged "short attention span" of the "average person."

Majorly wrong. Excellent post and useful questions.

Why, thank you

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

I think the answer will be different for each person. That is, it will depend on the writer's skill with SEO and their ability to engage the reader and say something that is both useful and interesting.

Most people will fall at one end or the other of the spectrum, with few in the middle. I say that because, in my experience, there's a broad gap between skill levels, and only a very few living inside that gap. Those people tend to be students of writing, and consistently improving, so they'll move pretty quickly toward the higher skill levels.

Sloppy or just plain bad writers will almost always do better with short articles. They tend to make it easier for people to forgive bad writing. Not as much opportunity to test their endurance.

Good writers will choose based on their own talents and preferences, and can make either length work.


Paul

I see your point. Bad or good writing can be improved by reading up
more - I'm signing up for free copyrighting courses. And time is the
only factor in my opinion that brings in the money to prove whether
your article is effective or not.

It's not uncommon to hear of people who made an article about a
certain product and forgot about it. Only to check in months or years
later and found that they actually made a sale through that article.

Time will tell whether it's effective or not.

My greatest query for this thread is: Over a period of time, provided
that articles have been submitted on a constant basis (key to
success in article marketing, I believe), which would be more beneficial?

Asher

[Allen Graves]

There are still way too many variables, but if forced to make an educated guess, I would say the person who writes the 250 worders may get more click throughs, but I would guess that the 800 word writer would get more sales conversions (no matter the CTR).

Here's a little gem that you can take to the bank. It is more important than anything right now to convey the fact that you are trying to build credibility. Do you think Google would suspect this in a 250 word article? I seriously doubt it.

I think that 1000 words is too long for internet article marketing unless you are writing it specifically for an ezine or upper tier authority site. That's why I keep saying 800.

AL