Number of Words for Original Content

51 replies
I was reading around various SEO blogs and several of them were telling people to that the ideal number of original words for a well-written HP is now "800."

I'm not sure where this number was pulled from.

Anyone have an optimum SEO friendly number?
#content #number #original #words
  • Profile picture of the author fedor50
    Originally Posted by billthelord View Post

    I was reading around various SEO blogs and several of them were telling people to that the ideal number of original words for a well-written HP is now "800."

    I'm not sure where this number was pulled from.

    Anyone have an optimum SEO friendly number?
    As long as you write a minimum of 500 words you should be fine. But don't just focus on length, focus on quality
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6599301].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author EddieWade
      Banned
      Originally Posted by fedor50 View Post

      As long as you write a minimum of 500 words you should be fine. But don't just focus on length, focus on quality
      I totally agree!
      You must have a minimum so that your article could be well-built and convincing. And more important than that is indeed how you write it.

      But I have not heard of such "rule". Who is fixing these type of settings anyway?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6604898].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Alexx
    Yeah as the post above says, 500 is normally the bottom-limit.

    Although remember, you could write 3000 words, and if it's not written well (with both SE and user considered) then you ain't not going no where!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6599475].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author billthelord
      Thanks for the replies.

      I was wondering if there was something I didn't know about regarding the magic "800" word count.

      One of the bloggers was also claiming making your pictures smaller in blog posts helps for SEO in the new Google update.:confused:
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6599512].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Fredrik Aurdal
        [DELETED]
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6599774].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author onSubie
          Originally Posted by Fredrik Aurdal View Post

          Smaller pictures in the blog post lol, doesn't have anything with SEO to do.
          They mean the file size, not the viewing size. Faster loading pages get an SEO boost over slower pages. The plugin WP Smu**** will do this automatically.

          You can also improve this using a WP caching plugin like WP Super Cache or W3 Total Cache.

          Mahlon
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6604160].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dan C. Rinnert
    Originally Posted by billthelord View Post

    Anyone have an optimum SEO friendly number?
    I would say 3500 words, minimum. But the article has to be full of quality content. Search engine algorithms these days are smart enough to pick up on keyword stuffing, repetitive nonsense, and so on. If you look at magazines and the like, you can see that articles are frequently thousands of words long, containing a lot of information, including background information sprinkled throughout the length of the article. Professional writers have no problem creating quality articles of this length that will appeal to human readers, and that's what the search engines are trying to identify and prioritize in the rankings.

    People will, of course, present all kinds of arguments in favor of short articles. Frequently among those arguments is the supposed fact that people's attention spans are short. Well, that may be true, but typically those attention spans are short when what is being read is boring and fails to engage the reader from start to finish. Even marketers who recognize that long sales letters work, despite cries to the contrary, will fall victim to believing that short articles are better.

    Well, if a quality copywriter can hold a prospect's attention throughout a long sales letter, it should not be hard to accept that a quality article writer can do the same with an article. But, while there are marketers willing to spend hundreds of dollars on a copywriter to do their sales letter, many will balk at paying more than $5 for an article. So, they tend not to get long, quality articles. And, if you try paying a $5 article writer $30 to get a long article, that's not going to cut it. Someone accustomed to holding a reader's attention for only 500 words likely does not have the chops to hold a reader's attention for 3,000 words.

    In the long run, that kind of attitude can be more costly. I have seen people buying countless $5 articles, valuing a quantity of articles on their site over quality articles on their site. Then, when Google comes out with a new algorithm change, these webmasters are frequently scrambling to adjust and buy more $5 articles to compensate for this or that. Meanwhile, I have had articles on some of my sites consistently on the first page of Google (and other search engines) for years. I haven't had to scramble to adjust to Penguin or Panda or Pachyderm or whatever else comes down the pipe. So, one quality article is worth how many of those short $5 articles? Lots, I would imagine. What marketers will spend on lots of $5 articles could have been spent on one quality article of over three thousand words in length, and could have gotten the same bang for their dollars.

    What your competitors are doing is irrelevant. I don't favor longer articles because my competitors don't; I prefer them because they provide my readers with more value. Mind you, this doesn't mean that every article I put on my sites is several thousand words in length. I wish they were. But, the thing to bear in mind is that an authority on a subject should have little problem writing at length about it. As well, those who wish to be an authority on a subject would research it fully and be able to write at length about it, even though it may take longer to do. Sometimes, we may fail at doing these things because of our self-imposed rush to put something on our sites. It is to our own detriment that we do this, because, as I mentioned, an authority on a topic should have no problem writing a lengthy article about it and the search engines know this. The search engines will be looking for it.

    So, if your competitors have articles that weigh in around 500 words in length, that doesn't mean you should put up 600 word articles and call it a day. You should challenge yourself to do better than your competitor and yourself. You wrote 600 words? Good, now go back and flesh it out some more. Got it up to 750 words? Great. Now go back and flesh it out some more. Made it to 1500 words? Very good, now go back and flesh it out some more. And so on. You hit 3,000 words? Excellent. Now go back and cut out any nonsense you tossed in there to pad your word count. Down to 2500 words? Nice. Now go back and flesh it out some more to get it to 3,500 words or more. Rinse and repeat, you know?

    But, few people do any of those things. They just focus on getting by with little 300, 500 or maybe even 800 word articles. That's fine. It's very good actually. I hope my competitors keep doing that. In fact, on second thought, ignore everything I've said. Just focus on doing articles around five hundred words in length. Stuff them with your keywords too, please. Thanks!
    Signature

    Dan's content is irregularly read by handfuls of people. Join the elite few by reading his blog: dcrBlogs.com, following him on Twitter: dcrTweets.com or reading his fiction: dcrWrites.com but NOT by Clicking Here!

    Dan also writes content for hire, but you can't afford him anyway.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6599935].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TreyW
      Originally Posted by Dan C. Rinnert View Post

      So, if your competitors have articles that weigh in around 500 words in length, that doesn't mean you should put up 600 word articles and call it a day. You should challenge yourself to do better than your competitor and yourself. You wrote 600 words? Good, now go back and flesh it out some more. Got it up to 750 words? Great. Now go back and flesh it out some more. Made it to 1500 words? Very good, now go back and flesh it out some more. And so on. You hit 3,000 words? Excellent. Now go back and cut out any nonsense you tossed in there to pad your word count. Down to 2500 words? Nice. Now go back and flesh it out some more to get it to 3,500 words or more. Rinse and repeat, you know?
      This is exactly what I've been trying to do.

      Alexa as well as others on this forum were nice enough to point me in the right direction. I also read where she said longer articles were the way to go.

      All of my articles up to this point hadn't been over 500-600 words but I sat down and over the last 3-4 days worked on a longer article. I'm up to about 1100 words and I keep re-reading it and changing things here and there. I've deleted some stuff and made other things clearer and it's been a very good exercise so far.

      I doubt very seriously I'm going to get past 1500 words on this topic but that's still a lot for me and that's what I've been shooting for. My plan is to keep at it and increase the size of my articles as I get better at writing them.

      Hopefully, I'll get faster at it too.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6604595].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
      Originally Posted by Dan C. Rinnert View Post

      People will, of course, present all kinds of arguments in favor of short articles. Frequently among those arguments is the supposed fact that people's attention spans are short.
      It's not really short attention spans, but limited time. My target market is busy. They have things to do. They are not kicking back on the front porch with a mint julep and a magazine to settle in for the early afternoon. They are filling a ten-minute space between one thing and the next.

      A 3,000 word article takes about 15 minutes to read. My target market is not going to read it, because they don't have 15 minutes.

      A 500 word article takes two and a half minutes to read. An 800 word article takes about four. My target market will read those.

      The real question is who your articles are for. Some people are reading your article because they are rabid visitors to your site and want to read everything you say. Those people will block a half-hour every day to read your 3,000 word articles and make a meaningful comment on it.

      But some of us don't have those people, because we are after someone else. That's not a question of whose articles are "wrong" or which site "sucks" or whatever. It's about the person reading the article. Who is that person? Because arguing about how long an article "should" be is a worthless exercise unless you know who that person is.
      Signature
      "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6606420].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ArielT
        I think an article must be useful for those who wants to read short and those who would need read more, Then at the first of the article would be a general information that would fit for those who wants to read short, and more detailed imformation below for those who needs or wants to read more

        The amount of words would vary according the topic, but, hey, a minimun of 400-500 by common sense would be better.

        I'm not an expert yet, just my thought
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6606690].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Chris-
    Yes, 800 sounds about right to me, I've heard similar things from several people who seem to know what they're doing. The only real way to know if it works for you, is to split-test, but yes, I'd suggest going with around 800 these days.

    Chris
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6600706].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author VanessaB
      I have read that you should have 3 posts, minimum of 700 words each, for a total of over 2,000 words, on the home page.
      Signature
      The Recon Report
      Reliable Results, Predictable Profits
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6602812].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Chris Worner
        Originally Posted by DanielleS View Post

        I have read that you should have 3 posts, minimum of 700 words each, for a total of over 2,000 words, on the home page.
        I have read that the world will end on December 21st.

        -Chris
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6603396].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Chris Worner View Post

          I have read that the world will end on December 21st.
          What - before Christmas? That's a fiddle. I want my money back ...
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6603474].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author cashcow
    The more words you have the more chances to get picked up for different keyword phrases including ones you never even imagined people would be searching for and ones that no keyword tool will tell you about.

    But, forget about words. What message do you want to convey on the homepage? Focus on that and use however many words it takes to get that across.
    Signature
    Gone Fishing
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6602813].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author VanessaB
      Originally Posted by cashcow View Post

      The more words you have the more chances to get picked up for different keyword phrases including ones you never even imagined people would be searching for and ones that no keyword tool will tell you about.

      But, forget about words. What message do you want to convey on the homepage? Focus on that and use however many words it takes to get that across.
      I can do that in 3 words... "Buy This Now." (hehehe)
      Signature
      The Recon Report
      Reliable Results, Predictable Profits
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6602820].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author PenTao
      If you aren't up to reading Dan's always-insightful prose in post #6, Lee pretty much sums it up for me:

      Originally Posted by cashcow View Post

      The more words you have the more chances to get picked up for different keyword phrases including ones you never even imagined people would be searching for and ones that no keyword tool will tell you about.

      But, forget about words. What message do you want to convey on the homepage? Focus on that and use however many words it takes to get that across.
      Try to meet your reader's expectations by being informative and helpful, and the word count will take care of itself.

      <---WARNING: 100% Pure Silliness ahead ... proceed at your own risk--->

      On the other hand, I use the same technique for all my webpages, regardless of the niche:
      1. No original content.
      2. 2 to 3 articles from directories on getting your ex back.
      3. 5 to 10 Yahoo Answers on the most embarrassing health problems I can think of.
      4. EXACTLY 17 YouTube videos of domestic animals doing outlandish things.
      5. ALWAYS incorporate the name "Justin Bieber" in the title.
      6. Randomly distribute George Carlin's seven words you can't say on television throughout the text.
      7. Oh, yeah ... and leave out your target keyword entirely.
      <---End Silliness--->

      Hope this helps!

      Paul
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6603953].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
    Originally Posted by billthelord View Post


    I'm not sure where this number was pulled from.
    It was pulled from somebody's ass.

    Personally, I use 903 word articles. No more words, no less. And you should too because I'm a purported authority on such matters.
    Signature

    :)

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6602856].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Edman15
    Your blog post should have a minimum post length of 300 words. 500-800 is a good target to shoot for
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6602878].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Even after a supremely useful, helpful, educational post like Dan's, above (#6), people still prefer to repeat meaningless, nonsensical, one-line garbage than actually read it and give themselves the opportunity to learn something?

      Sometimes the thread comments here are ill-informed and misguided even to the point of being offensive, they really are.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6603275].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Nicola Lane
      Originally Posted by Edman15 View Post

      Your blog post should have a minimum post length of 300 words. 500-800 is a good target to shoot for
      Originally Posted by fedor50 View Post

      its generally best to have 500+ words of original content.


      Edman and Fedor, these answers in the context of this thread, look a lot like post count (or sig link) spam - and we don't like that around here.

      Perhaps you could help the OP, help yourself, and indeed help all of us by expanding on your answers a little.

      Why 300 words?
      Why 500 words?
      Why 500-800 words?
      Where does this knowledge come from?

      Hope that helps.

      Edited to Add:
      Fedor - why did you need to post essentially the same thing twice? You are at post #2 and #16 (although perhaps not for long if your post gets nuked as sig link spam)
      Another edit:
      Oh look it has gone! Picture me cheering!
      Signature

      I like to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6603628].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author fin
        I use 500 words minimum, but that's cause I'm a little OCD and I'd feel uncomfortable putting out any less lol.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6603657].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Nicola Lane View Post

        Edman and Fedor, these answers in the context of this thread, look a lot like post count (or sig link) spam - and we don't like that around here.
        Fedor at least has been doing it all day.

        Originally Posted by Nicola Lane View Post

        Perhaps you could help the OP, help yourself, and indeed help all of us by expanding on your answers a little.
        They're never coming back, but I'll give it a shot .

        Originally Posted by Nicola Lane View Post

        Why 300 words?
        Just long enough to not be a Facebook rant, but short enough to not have to do any real work.

        Originally Posted by Nicola Lane View Post

        Why 500 words?
        Because 500 is easily divisible, and makes people happy when they read it.

        Originally Posted by Nicola Lane View Post

        Why 500-800 words?
        Because Alexa has said "800-1200 words" so many times now that the number is finally ingrained in their subconscious. Unfortunately, they stored it as the maximum instead of the absolute minimum.

        Originally Posted by Nicola Lane View Post

        Where does this knowledge come from?
        Sasquatch. The jerk has been spreading rumors for years. Won't even come out of hiding to admit it.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6603852].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Christophe Young
    Ezinearticles put out a newsletter recently that said to stick to shorter articles in the 500 to 700 word range because if you present articles that are too long, it will be daunting to the reader and they may skip over it and move on to something else.

    I think it depends on certain personality types. I don't like long articles, long books, long conversations, long posts, long videos, or long anything! Well, almost anything.

    Remember, most people are lazy and probably will skip over a really long article without reading it but I think it depends on the niche. They say more women are readers so if you have a niche that caters to women, perhaps longer articles are better.

    Like they always say... test and see!
    Signature
    Under Construction
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6603728].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
      Originally Posted by Christophe Young View Post

      Ezinearticles put out a newsletter recently that said to stick to shorter articles in the 500 to 700 word range because if you present articles that are too long, it will be daunting to the reader and they may skip over it and move on to something else.
      I bet that number is pretty accurate...for EZA. I'm sure Chris and his staff look at tons of numbers and have a good idea of what articles work best on EZA.

      Does that mean it's a magic number that will apply everywhere else? Nope. In fact, I can guarantee that there are plenty of exceptions on the EZA website.

      High-quality, interesting content that gets found, gets read, and gets readers to take your desired action is all it takes. EASY!



      All the best,
      Michael
      Signature

      "Ich bin en fuego!"
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6604514].message }}
  • Yep 800 is good and don't re-spin the content, never re-spin, because it's not a viable solution for the future. So yes write in your own words and then go back and see where you can make the keyword you target rich and dense without overloading. It's a balancing act and takes time to master.
    Signature
    Conversion Magnet - Instapage Premium accounts for $39/mo, normally $99/mo.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6603898].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Cheryl Low
      I don't know what's the right answer but my article lengths are generally in the 500 - 1800 words range, depending on the topic and my mood.

      Personally, unless the article is extremely interesting to me (and I have to admit that would be rare), it wouldn't hold my attention after about 600 words. After that I'd start to skim to the end to decide if it's worthwhile to continue - and most likely it wouldn't be.

      I really can't explain why this is but I wonder if it may have to do with reading on a computer. I could read many chapters of a book or an e-book on an ipad in a plane or a train, I've pored over pages and pages of legalese in contracts for hours but I can't do it on a computer.

      Is it just me?

      Cheryl
      Signature

      Affiliate template sites not allowed in sigs.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6604005].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Cheryl Low View Post

        Personally, unless the article is extremely interesting to me (and I have to admit that would be rare), it wouldn't hold my attention after about 600 words. After that I'd start to skim to the end to decide if it's worthwhile to continue - and most likely it wouldn't be.
        And right there is the problem and the origin of that myth. Certain people think "I only like to read short articles" others think "I like to read long articles." Then they extrapolate that to mean that whatever they like the entire market will like.

        That's lunacy on so many levels. The best length for a article? As long as it takes to say what you need to say in a way that people actually want to hear it.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6604124].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author fin
          Originally Posted by Joe Robinson View Post


          That's lunacy on so many levels. The best length for a article? As long as it takes to say what you need to say in a way that people actually want to hear it.
          I do agree with this... BUT, I thought the only reason people stated the 800-1200 word article length is because it would be easier to syndicate.

          It's pretty much common sense that people who like to read long articles would make their way to the end of a 500 word article, where as someone who likes short articles might not make their way to the end of a 1200 one.

          There's been more than a thousand equations where I've started reading a good article and couldn't be bothered to finish it, but what I usually say is I'll go back and finish it when I feel up to it.

          If someone likes any article they might click through a link, but the majority of people might not get there if they don't read it all.

          I had my highest traffic day ever yesterday. I got a lot of sign ups, but no where near a good percentage compared to the amount of traffic. It took me 2 mins and less than 100 words. And the people who still came through will probably come back, or at least a lot of them.

          I'm not trying to start an argument. More to say that longer isn't always better and don't just stick to a certain length because people on the Internet tell you it's the only way.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6604526].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author myob
            Originally Posted by fin View Post

            I thought the only reason people stated the 800-1200 word article length is because it would be easier to syndicate.
            It needs to be clarified that article syndication is just a singular subset of other web content mentioned in this thread. To increase the chances of syndication, it is often recommended articles to be about 800-1200 words. Long articles do tend to convert better, and with some notable exceptions, this range is generally considered to be an optimum compromise acceptable to publishers for syndication and the expectations of readers.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6604676].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
            Banned
            Originally Posted by fin View Post

            I do agree with this... BUT, I thought the only reason people stated the 800-1200 word article length is because it would be easier to syndicate.
            Like Paul stated, the situation varies. For syndicated pieces, that has proven to be the best in most cases.

            Then there are completely different situations. I'll read a 2,000 word article on Cracked about Teddy Roosevelt being a badass and be happy. I couldn't say the same about a post where the Patriots announce the signing of some practice squad fodder.

            With content, length is never one size fits all. And then you have Kurt's point (that he always brings up ) about video content. A horse of a whole other color that we could talk about.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6604869].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author fin
              Originally Posted by Joe Robinson View Post

              Like Paul stated, the situation varies. For syndicated pieces, that has proven to be the best in most cases.

              Then there are completely different situations. I'll read a 2,000 word article on Cracked about Teddy Roosevelt being a badass and be happy. I couldn't say the same about a post where the Patriots announce the signing of some practice squad fodder.

              With content, length is never one size fits all. And then you have Kurt's point (that he always brings up ) about video content. A horse of a whole other color that we could talk about.
              Yeah, let's be honest, the most likely chance of someone clicking on your link is if it's something they are interested in and it will help them in some way.

              The length or quality of content is a distant second. I could read something amazing that I didn't give a fly's ass about and I won't click on a link.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6604893].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
                Banned
                Originally Posted by fin View Post

                The length or quality of content is a distant second. I could read something amazing that I didn't give a fly's ass about and I won't click on a link.
                Agree with your statement about length, but not quality. Sure having something that interests them and makes them want to click is number one, but the quality of the article is your closer, the thing that gets them to take that first action (clicking). Then the quality of your landing page is the qualifier that validates their interest in action #2 (opting-in).

                And on and on down the sales funnel.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6604921].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author fin
                  Originally Posted by Joe Robinson View Post

                  Agree with your statement about length, but not quality. Sure having something that interests them and makes them want to click is number one, but the quality of the article is your closer, the thing that gets them to take that first action (clicking). Then the quality of your landing page is the qualifier that validates their interest in action #2 (opting-in).

                  And on and on down the sales funnel.
                  Quality doesn't mean much unless you actually tell me what's quality about it.

                  Someone could write a very well written, researched, and entertaining article about 10 steps to making an information product. I couldn't give a crap about clicking on a link.

                  Someone else could write a poorly written article regarding a topic I'm having problems with and he could use personal experience to make his points. I'd think it was quality and click through.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6604949].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Cheryl Low
          Originally Posted by Joe Robinson View Post

          And right there is the problem and the origin of that myth. Certain people think "I only like to read short articles" others think "I like to read long articles." Then they extrapolate that to mean that whatever they like the entire market will like.
          And I wasn't implying that because I prefer to read short articles, I think everyone else is the same. I only write for Ezine and my blog. For Ezine, I stick to the recommended length. For my blog, I keep to what's required of the article. I try to shake it up a bit from post to post. Some long, some short, some videos, some information about my niche and sometimes just a short funny anecdote. Does that work for everyone? Maybe not. It works for me.

          I don't doubt that some people here have a lot of credibility and knowledge and we should learn from their hard-earned experience. All the same, with all due respect, we have different niches and cater to different markets and appeal to our customers in different ways.

          I'd say we should always heed sound advice but with a pinch of salt because what worked for someone else may not necessarily work for us. The only way to find out is to try, test, tweak and re-test until we get the results we want. The same applies to article length.

          I know a very successful internet marketer in my country who cannot write 100 words to save his life. His sales letters, emails, blog posts are short (less than 250 words), full of spelling and grammatical errors, occasionally some cliched words of wisdom and usually more about him than anything really new or informative but he has a following of more than 100,000 subscribers.

          I guess this means different strokes for different folks.

          [Don't want to stir up anything here, it's just my observation and no one else has to agree.]

          Cheryl
          Signature

          Affiliate template sites not allowed in sigs.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6606181].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author PenTao
        Originally Posted by Cheryl Low View Post

        I don't know what's the right answer but my article lengths are generally in the 500 - 1800 words range, depending on the topic and my mood.

        Personally, unless the article is extremely interesting to me (and I have to admit that would be rare), it wouldn't hold my attention after about 600 words. After that I'd start to skim to the end to decide if it's worthwhile to continue - and most likely it wouldn't be.

        I really can't explain why this is but I wonder if it may have to do with reading on a computer. I could read many chapters of a book or an e-book on an ipad in a plane or a train, I've pored over pages and pages of legalese in contracts for hours but I can't do it on a computer.

        Is it just me?

        Cheryl
        No, Cheryl, it's not just you ... it's most of the people actually searching for stuff on the web, I'd say. They want to find what they are looking for, then move on.

        My thinking is that you use just enough words to convey your ideas and hold your reader's attention. That may only be 250 words, or it may be well over 1,000.

        Sadly, I'm sure that some folks are still thinking in terms of just producing SEO fodder for Google and being "original" enough to pass Copyscape, with no real regard for their site visitors' needs. They are the ones that are most worried about word count as a component of their SEO "formula".

        This approach is probably working for some right now, and that's fine, as long as they are comfortable with it. I'm not the content police by a long shot.

        Personally, though, I'd rather at least try to entertain, if not actually edify. I may not do as well in the short-term, but I like to believe my content will stand the test of time better.

        I think I just broke my rule about using "just enough words".

        Paul
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6604177].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
          Banned
          Originally Posted by PenTao View Post

          No, Cheryl, it's not just you ... it's most of the people actually searching for stuff on the web, I'd say. They want to find what they are looking for, then move on.
          People aren't always just searching for snippets of information. They just as often want stories, in depth research, an escape for an hour or two. People need to get this: there is no way, for either side of the short v. long content argument, to generalize what people want. It doesn't work like that.

          They want entertainment, or they want information, they want an escape, or they want to purchase something. Those are the only absolutes that can safely be claimed.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6604212].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author PenTao
            I agree with you, Joe. I didn't mean to imply that it always has to be a short snippet ... just that it should be long enough to meet their need/want.

            In short, the right number of words is the number you happen to use to meet the reader's expectations. No need to spend time counting.

            Thanks for clarifying!

            Paul
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6604239].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
              Banned
              Originally Posted by PenTao View Post

              I agree with you, Joe. I didn't mean to imply that it always has to be a short snippet ... just that it should be long enough to meet their need/want.

              In short, the right number of words is the number you happen to use to meet the reader's expectations. No need to spend time counting.

              Thanks for clarifying!

              Paul
              There ya go, and with that fact in mind you'll find yourself very liberated when it comes to your writing.

              If you ever find yourself wanting my attention , you'll have to go long, like Dan's stuff. I enjoy it when I don't think about how much he makes fun of me .
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6604459].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dgnew1281
    I assume you are referring to... "HP" as the Homepage of your website.

    I'm still doing what I have been doing for years and my articles and websites have not suffered from... Panda or Penguin.

    For article directories and parasites I usually keep the average around 500 (+ or -) words. 1 main keyword phrase sprinkled with 2 to 4 sub-keywords. The subs usually have at least 1 word from the main keyword phrase in it.

    For total 100% whitehat sites... I usually keep it between 800 and 1200 words.

    But.... on HP's... I use the main keyword phrase @ at least 2% and more subs (than... article directories - parasites) all through it.

    As Cashcow stated... you will start ranking for keywords YOU have NO idea you are ranking for.... unless you know how to and have proper tracking.

    Still working for me.


    Darryl
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6604114].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    I have pages with between 150 and 8500 words.

    I also have videos which don't have any "text". I also use infographics that can be pinned and/or shared that don't have any "text", but can still communicate a message and/or data.

    Both videos and infographics can and do go viral on sites like Twitter and Pinterest and should also be considered as "content" too.
    Signature
    Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
    Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6604557].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Knocks
    800 sounds like a random number
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6604875].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Knocks View Post

      800 sounds like a random number
      It does a little, but the reality is that there probably isn't a specific number that isn't going to sound like "a random number".

      The point about 800 words, as a bare minimum, is that people who tested it reliably and methodically report that they regularly make a lot more money, and get a lot more visitors, and even a lot more backlinks on relevant sites (through syndication) from an 800-word article than they do through two 400-word articles.

      But yes - it is a random number in the sense that one could just as easily say "1,200", because testing shows that those, over a wide range of niches, are far better than two 600-word ones, as well. (Which I've tested a lot).

      I've done a lot of testing in this, in several different niches, and something around 1,200+ words is the winner, for me, for "everyday articles", at least in so far as one can choose a number at all without it sounding random.

      There's usually a lot of "flawed logic" in these discussions of article length. People who start from the assumption that "getting the highest click-through rate possible" is their objective are never going to see it the same way as others who've actually tested. It's a very similar point (and very similar discussions stem from it) to the one about list-building: people whose primary objective is "to build the biggest list possible" will always see it differently from other people whose primary objective - for example - is "to make the maximum income from their lists over a 6-month period".

      It's all very well for people to allege that "many people won't read an article that length". They may even be right. The point they're almost invariably missing is that it's the ones who do who are most likely to become customers, whereas a shorter article might well not have attracted them.

      Which is better: to have 300 visitors to your site, of whom 30 become customers, or to have 100 visitors of whom 60 become customers

      It's not a very difficult question, is it? And it is the point, here - the point that much of the conversation misses.

      People often measure the wrong parameters.

      Yes - it's true that a lot of people won't read a 1,200 - 1,500-word article.

      But in itself, that isn't relevant to your income and doesn't mean that shorter work is preferable.

      (I appreciate that the thread is about "content". I'm talking only about "articles" in this post).
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6604965].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author fin
        Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

        The point they're almost invariably missing is that it's the ones who do who are most likely to become customers, whereas a shorter article might well not have attracted them.

        .
        This is a bit like the people who use list posts or "trophy" posts because they get the most traffic, shares and comments. But the people who get the most customers are the people who talk about one single thing and actually help them solve a problem.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6605025].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
          Banned
          Originally Posted by fin View Post

          This is a bit like the people who use list posts or "trophy" posts because they get the most traffic, shares and comments. But the people who get the most customers are the people who talk about one single thing and actually help them solve a problem.
          You're citing two techniques that don't have to be mutually exclusive.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6605048].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author fin
            Originally Posted by Joe Robinson View Post

            You're citing two techniques that don't have to be mutually exclusive.
            They do.

            If you give someone 10 ways to improve their creativity they will read it and enjoy the post, but there are unlikely to take much action.

            If you give someone one specific thing to do they are much more likely to take action and improve.

            I understand where you're coming from, but by listening to people who study the psychology of marketing you will understand it a lot more.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6605058].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author uniquecontent
    Hey, Word Count, Formal, Length are nothing to do with SEO. Most important is the quality and information you provide in your article. Content should be well-written, highly informative and grammatically correct. Most of the directories expect 450-500 words, but if you are posting for blogs you don't need more than 250-300.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6606885].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TxemaSanchis
    I think you can not say the exact number of words. From an article 500 must be indexed well. Since then articles with 3000 words is too much, nobody will read. I focus on more than 500 and give them fresh and original content and I assure you it works.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6607063].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mary Davis
    I have heard rumblings that Google is favoring longer articles since the algorithm change(s). And for certain niches, that is all well and good.

    However, for numerous niches, readers really don't have that kind of attention span (no matter how good your copywriting is). It doesn't matter how good an article or site content is if people aren't taking the time to read it.

    I'd personally try between 750 & 1,000 -- and break it up into chunks with lots of keyword-rich (but not stuffed - there's a difference!) subheadings to guide your readers along through the article.

    But don't worry - by the time marketers have this algorithm down, it will be sure to change again.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6607115].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Brad Stephens
    I would say the minimum is 500 words.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6607377].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CyborgX
    Tons and tons of information. No need to add any of my thoughts. But It all depends. If it is a page that I'm attempting to rank, then I try to develop it until I have between 750 and 2500 words. Having titles, sub-titles, and bullet points is also a good idea. If it's a blog post, then I try to have between 150 and 500 words. These are just general rules-of-thumb.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6607417].message }}

Trending Topics