A 500 word article will always outperform a 1000 word article

by yourreviewer 149 replies
I just stumbled upon an article syndication pdf in Ezinearticles in which they state the following,

Be Clear & Concise in Your Writing: A 500 word article will always outperform a 1000 word article. You are writing for a medium that embraces instant gratification: the Internet. Keep your articles clear and concise, so the reader can quickly comprehend the quality content you are sharing.

You can find the source in the link below.

http://media.ezinearticles.com/pdf/e...arketing-2.pdf

Is it just me who finds that statement ridiculous and utterly false?
#main internet marketing discussion forum #500 #article #outperform #word
  • Profile picture of the author Troy_Phillips
    Originally Posted by yourreviewer View Post

    I just stumbled upon an article syndication pdf in Ezinearticles in which they state the following,

    Be Clear & Concise in Your Writing: A 500 word article will always outperform a 1000 word article. You are writing for a medium that embraces instant gratification: the Internet. Keep your articles clear and concise, so the reader can quickly comprehend the quality content you are sharing.

    You can find the source in the link below.

    http://media.ezinearticles.com/pdf/e...arketing-2.pdf

    Is it just me who finds that statement ridiculous and utterly false?
    You need to remember this is coming from a site that has failed miserably in terms of what it's own expectations were.

    It is not just you .. they are wrong.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7343899].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author fin
    I'm getting a bit sick of longer articles these days. I wouldn't actually mind if it was more than filler content.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7343902].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author connorbringas
    Originally Posted by yourreviewer View Post

    I just stumbled upon an article syndication pdf in Ezinearticles in which they state the following,

    Be Clear & Concise in Your Writing: A 500 word article will always outperform a 1000 word article. You are writing for a medium that embraces instant gratification: the Internet. Keep your articles clear and concise, so the reader can quickly comprehend the quality content you are sharing.

    You can find the source in the link below.

    http://media.ezinearticles.com/pdf/e...arketing-2.pdf

    Is it just me who finds that statement ridiculous and utterly false?
    Couldnt agree more. However, for ezinearticles they give preference over a shorter article that is more concise than a longer article..
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7343915].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TimothyTorrents
    It really depends on how the article is written. Sometimes I like reading long articles sometimes I don't. But generally, I think they are wrong.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7343926].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author myob
      There certainly are exceptions, but short articles generally don't contain enough value to engage the reader for taking the intended action. A highly effective article involves a delicate balance of emotion and logic, which is impossible to achieve in just 500 words. Vague, abstract generalities are hard to relate to. But content that sustains attention with relevant, specific details has a much higher probability for conversion.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7344092].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
        I think it is utter nonsense too, well, unless your site caters to those suffering from Attention Deficit Disorders.

        It is much more difficult to provide pertinent information combined with empathy as well as the tone for the piece whether it be humor, utilizing analogies to make concepts crystal clear, or a real life personal experience correlating to the information provided in a mere 500 words.

        I understand that holding your reader's attention is important, but making a piece short in order to do so isn't wise if you're causing them to feel that reading that piece was a waste of time, however short that time may have been.

        Terra
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7344134].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
          Banned
          Originally Posted by itejsin View Post

          if you have quality articles even 350 could be nice.
          Well, not for Ezine Articles, it wouldn't: they have a minimum length requirement of 400 words (and in a range of popular niches it's 600 words instead). "Just saying".

          Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

          I think it is utter nonsense too, well, unless your site caters to those suffering from Attention Deficit Disorders.
          LOL, it's one of those "you very nearly owe me a new keyboard" comments ...
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7344537].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
            Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

            I think it is utter nonsense too, well, unless your site caters to those suffering from Attention Deficit Disorders.
            Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post


            LOL, it's one of those "you very nearly owe me a new keyboard" comments ...
            Haha! Sorry.

            I was wondering if anyone would catch my little bit of sarcastic humor.

            Terra
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7345669].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    Originally Posted by yourreviewer View Post

    Is it just me who finds that statement ridiculous and utterly false?
    Noooooo ... it's always been there, and it's always been nonsense! :p

    A 1,000-word article gets me far, far more traffic (and even far more backlinks!) than the same word-count set out as two 500-word articles. On absolutely any niche at all that I've tried. No comparison!

    I'm always grimacing when I see people here, in conversations about article length, saying that "people get bored by more than 500/600 words and won't get as far as your resource-box". Sheeeeeeesh, talk about missing the point. :rolleyes:
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7343982].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yourreviewer
      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

      Noooooo ... it's always been there, and it's always been nonsense! :p

      A 1,000-word article gets me far, far more traffic (and even far more backlinks!) than the same word-count set out as two 500-word articles. On absolutely any niche at all. No comparison!

      I'm always grimacing when I see people here, in conversations about article length, saying that "people get bored by more than 500/600 words and won't get as far as your resource-box". Sheeeeeeesh, talk about missing the point. :rolleyes:
      Alexa, personally, I have found longer articles get better quality leads (these subscribers are more likely to double opt-in, open my messages, click on the links and buy products) than the leads I get from shorter articles. Given a choice, I will always prefer fewer better quality subscribers to a higher number of unresponsive subscribers.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7344013].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by yourreviewer View Post

        Alexa, personally, I have found longer articles get better quality leads (these subscribers are more likely to double opt-in, open my messages, click on the links and buy products) than the leads I get from shorter articles. Given a choice, I will always prefer fewer better quality subscribers to a higher number of unresponsive subscribers.
        Yes, same here - I agree completely.

        I think the length "qualifies" the leads. You build a list that's going to have a higher open-rate if the visitors have come from 1,000/1,200-word articles than if they've come from shorter ones.

        But even just in terms of SEO (not that I care much, to be honest), you'll get more relevant-site backlinks out of longer articles, too, simply because far more people will re-publish them.

        Originally Posted by Kevin McNally View Post

        Shorter article might work better on EA since the visitor has so many distractions with all those pesky adsense ads !

        Clever advice, 2 articles for the price of 1 for EA .
        Ah yes, good point. EZA might possibly prefer shorter ones from the perspective of their AdSense income. Hadn't even thought about that.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7344031].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author fin
        Originally Posted by yourreviewer View Post

        Alexa, personally, I have found longer articles get better quality leads (these subscribers are more likely to double opt-in, open my messages, click on the links and buy products) than the leads I get from shorter articles. Given a choice, I will always prefer fewer better quality subscribers to a higher number of unresponsive subscribers.
        Do you mind giving a quick explanation how you test all this?

        Are you saying the quality and topic of the article has no bearing, people just buy your products because you write long articles?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7344058].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author yourreviewer
          Originally Posted by fin View Post

          Do you mind giving a quick explanation how you test all this?

          Are you saying the quality and topic of the article has no bearing, people just buy your products because you write long articles?
          No, I am not referring to articles which are longer from fluff and filler. I am talking about articles that are longer and filled with useful, engaging content. I map out the frequently asked questions by the people in the marketplace and organize an article answering many questions in one. Other formats include '7 Tips to, 11 Ways to' type articles which always do well. I use two different urls for squeeze pages for testing purposes.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7344104].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author fin
            Originally Posted by yourreviewer View Post

            No, I am not referring to articles which are longer from fluff and filler. I am talking about articles that are longer and filled with useful, engaging content. I map out the frequently asked questions by the people in the marketplace and organize an article answering many questions in one. Other formats include '7 Tips to, 11 Ways to' type articles which always do well. I use two different urls for squeeze pages for testing purposes.
            I still don't understand how you're doing it.

            Are you using 2 articles on the same topic with one being a compressed version?

            And if you did have 2 articles on different sites, wouldn't the different audiences have a bearing on the outcome?

            Could it be possible that you write longer articles on the topics you're passionate about, therefore it's the quality rather than the length?

            When you think about everything that makes a great article, it seems crazy to say that size matters.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7344129].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author yourreviewer
              Originally Posted by fin View Post

              I still don't understand how you're doing it.

              Are you using 2 articles on the same topic with one being a compressed version?

              And if you did have 2 articles on different sites, wouldn't the different audiences have a bearing on the outcome?

              Could it be possible that you write longer articles on the topics you're passionate about, therefore it's the quality rather than the length?

              When you think about everything that makes a great article, it seems crazy to say that size matters.
              Yes, I am talking about the same topic. If the shorter version says 5 Tips to, the longer version would be 9 Tips to (and the tips would be different, so it is not the same content).

              I am not saying you cannot write a good article for 500 words, what I am saying is that for me, I have been able to deliver more value through a longer article than a shorter one.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7344191].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author fin
                Originally Posted by yourreviewer View Post

                Yes, I am talking about the same topic. If the shorter version says 5 Tips to, the longer version would be 9 Tips to (and the tips would be different, so it is not the same content).

                I am not saying you cannot write a good article for 500 words, what I am saying is that for me, I have been able to deliver more value through a longer article than a shorter one.
                Fair enough.

                It's something I'm thinking about a lot at the moment. My audience seems to react better to little wins, so giving them a huge article with lots of different things to implement would seem to go against that. Obviously it all depends on the niche.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7344231].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Sandra Martinez
                  Originally Posted by fin View Post

                  Fair enough.

                  It's something I'm thinking about a lot at the moment. My audience seems to react better to little wins, so giving them a huge article with lots of different things to implement would seem to go against that. Obviously it all depends on the niche.
                  Maybe it is your style. If you have good results with that length then go for it.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7344253].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Geordie John
                  Originally Posted by fin View Post

                  Fair enough.

                  It's something I'm thinking about a lot at the moment. My audience seems to react better to little wins, so giving them a huge article with lots of different things to implement would seem to go against that. Obviously it all depends on the niche.
                  Could that be the nature of the niche you are in, and the audience you are marketing too?
                  Signature

                  Under Construction

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7344273].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author fin
                    Originally Posted by Geordie John View Post

                    Could that be the nature of the niche you are in, and the audience you are marketing too?
                    I don't think so. I think it would apply to any niche where you're teaching something and you want people to see results. But most people I follow don't tend to use list posts.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7344297].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Zotti
                      Originally Posted by myob View Post

                      A highly effective article involves a delicate balance of emotion and logic, which is impossible to achieve in just 500 words.
                      I would add "depth" here. Longer articles are often read by people who like to think/read about matters with substance.

                      Originally Posted by fin View Post

                      I think it would apply to any niche where you're teaching something and you want people to see results.
                      I frequently read articles for the sake of learning [about] things (e.g. scientific matters) and/or for seeing other perspectives on a particular matter, event, or controversial issue, etc. (A kind of meeting of the minds.). From those articles, I don't necessarily expect any immediately implementable solutions; yet, the intellectual value I get from them makes me more likely to trust the solutions offered later by the same writer.

                      I look for short articles when I need a quick fix for something. But, I have a more frequent need for intellectually/emotionally engaging reading than for a quick fix to cover the ink that got on the chair.


                      Articles are like physical products.

                      Bread and milk = Short articles
                      They are mass-marketed, short-lived quick-fixes, and their producers must compete on price. Besides, there is a limit to the ability to compete -- nobody can afford to bake bread for $1, and sell it for $0.90. And it really doesn't matter where I buy it.

                      Furniture, jewelry, etc. = Longer articles
                      Fewer merchants, long-term benefits, less competition on price. The real way to build trust and customer loyalty.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7345807].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Frank Donovan
          My initial reaction to that statement was to wonder by what criteria EZA was measuring performance, but I see that the advice is from a tutorial about syndication. That being the case, it's not only an incorrect assertion, but a wholely misleading one and EZA should be required either to back it up with hard statistics or remove it.

          It's almost impossible to believe that, all else being equal, publishers looking for content wouldn't prefer the longer article in the vast majority of cases.


          Frank
          Signature
          I've just put Richard Branson's number on speed-dial. I call it my "Get-Rich-Quick" scheme.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7344116].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Jordan Kovats
      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

      Noooooo ... it's always been there, and it's always been nonsense! :p

      A 1,000-word article gets me far, far more traffic (and even far more backlinks!) than the same word-count set out as two 500-word articles. On absolutely any niche at all that I've tried. No comparison!

      I'm always grimacing when I see people here, in conversations about article length, saying that "people get bored by more than 500/600 words and won't get as far as your resource-box". Sheeeeeeesh, talk about missing the point. :rolleyes:

      Sorry, but you lost me at grimacing....:rolleyes:
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7345720].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kevin McNally
    Shorter article might work better on EA since the visitor has so many distractions with all those pesky adsense ads !

    Clever advice, 2 articles for the price of 1 for EA .
    Signature
    > $164 Earnings In Under 48 Hours ? Click Here for More Info
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7344030].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Inspired, Inc.
      Originally Posted by Kevin McNally View Post

      Shorter article might work better on EA since the visitor has so many distractions with all those pesky adsense ads !

      Clever advice, 2 articles for the price of 1 for EA .
      I think so too... it is probably the reason why they allow Diamond writers to just have at least 300 words and basic author at least 400...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7351366].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Make Money Ninja
    Honestly, article length is BULLSHIT.

    I am going to repeat that again... article length means nothing when it comes ranking in Google.

    It is all about how engaging the content is and how your visitors react to it. Ever wonder why Youtube videos always rank in Google yet have no text content? It's because Google is getting better at evaluating content quality, so if your content is awesome it doesnt matter whether its 100 words, 500 words, 1000 words or 3000 words. All that matters is user experience.

    Say a visitor comes to your site from Google and then spends an hour viewing 20 pages on your site. That is a good user experience, it doesn't matter if your articles are 500 or 1000 words long.

    Say your visitor comes to your site, finds it ugly, disgusting, too many ads and leaves straight away. That is a bad experience. Google is getting better at distinguishing the too and rewarding sites with good user experience.
    Signature

    The Ultimate Guide To Link Building

    Get More Links - Generate More Traffic - Make More Money!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7344078].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dmarcotte
      Originally Posted by Make Money Ninja View Post

      Honestly, article length is BULLSHIT.

      I am going to repeat that again... article length means nothing when it comes ranking in Google.

      It is all about how engaging the content is and how your visitors react to it. Ever wonder why Youtube videos always rank in Google yet have no text content? It's because Google is getting better at evaluating content quality, so if your content is awesome it doesnt matter whether its 100 words, 500 words, 1000 words or 3000 words. All that matters is user experience.
      This is so true - the quality of the article is far more important than the length.
      Signature

      Never give up!
      www.newbieneutronium.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7344339].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Geordie John
    I bought a Nat Geo magazine not so long ago for a story on a new-ish theory on how the monolithic heads were transported and erected on Easter Island to read on a plane trip... I'd have been severely disappointed had that turned out to be a 500 word article.

    I'm the same when it comes to researching and learning online too. When i am looking for something to actually read because i am interested in the topic, it doesn't matter if the article turns into a book, i'll still keep reading if it's well written and presented and is giving me what i wanted when i chose to read it.

    I don't tend to stay on websites long if it's a bunch of 400 and 500 word pages.

    Not sure why i ever thought that was a good way to market my own stuff when it wasn't even anything alike to my own behavior...

    Good old times...
    Signature

    Under Construction

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7344192].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yourreviewer
    With regards to length, if I am looking for a topic like 'how to start a podcast' I would personally prefer the third content piece compared to 1 and 2 and the second content piece over 1.

    I agree that the content below is not an article per say and so it is not the same as comparing an Ezine article vs another Ezine article, but the concept is the same. And personally for me, I am able to achieve that "Wow" factor in my articles more easily when they are longer than when they are shorter.

    1. 5 Steps to Starting Your Own Podcasting Show | Social Media Examiner

    2. How to Start Your Own Podcast: 11 steps - wikiHow

    3. How to Start a Podcast – Pat’s Complete Step-By-Step Podcasting Tutorial
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7344226].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author clever7
    It’s very hard to write something meaningful in only a few words, but if you can do that, you should do it.

    I always believed that long articles attract more readers, but there are all kinds of readers online. There are also readers who hate long articles.

    You should write articles of all sizes. A short 450 word article can be more attractive than a 1000 word article about a certain topic. A very long 3000 word article can be far superior and attract numerous readers because you are giving away important information you could even charge for.

    EZA’s rules and their blog, their guidelines, etc, are far from being helpful. They care about volume. This is why they encourage all authors to write short articles, which are simple.

    If they would tell you that you have to spend three hours writing a quality article with real lessons perhaps you would immediately conclude that you should do something else to get traffic instead of wasting your time with article writing. This is why they tell you that short articles are the best ones. They hope you’ll write many short articles per day instead of writing one long article per week.

    Their interest is to get people to their website, and not to send people to your website. This is their secondary intention since if you'll never get traffic you’ll stop writing articles, but for you, this is your basic intention. You only want to send traffic to your links.

    You don’t want to make people read your article and then look for a better one at EZA because your article is not good enough.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7344952].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by clever7 View Post

      You don’t want to make people read your article and then look for a better one at EZA because your article is not good enough.
      You don't want your potential customers to be reading a copy of one of your articles in an article directory at all, do you? That's not who those EZA copies are there for. http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5068872
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7344995].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Randall Magwood
    I cant remember the last time i sat down and read word-for-word a 1000-word article. Skimmed through it, yeah. But read it fully? No. I dont know.... i may have ADHD or something.

    ...haha just kidding.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7345552].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
    Originally Posted by yourreviewer View Post

    Be Clear & Concise in Your Writing: A 500 word article will always outperform a 1000 word article. You are writing for a medium that embraces instant gratification: the Internet.
    The basic premise is wrong. I do not write for those people.
    Therefore any point built off that statement does not apply.

    ***

    Originally Posted by yourreviewer View Post

    Alexa, personally, I have found longer articles get better quality leads (these subscribers are more likely to double opt-in, open my messages, click on the links and buy products) than the leads I get from shorter articles. Given a choice, I will always prefer fewer better quality subscribers to a higher number of unresponsive subscribers.
    1. Clearly I am not Alexa, but I am going to open my mouth here anyway.
    2. Don't concern yourself with "double opt-in". Single opt-in is just fine.
    3. I agree 100% with your final statement there.

    PS. It is always your choice.


    ***


    Originally Posted by Make Money Ninja View Post

    Honestly, writing articles for Google ranking is BULLSHIT.
    Fixed that for you.


    ***


    Originally Posted by Geordie John View Post

    I bought a Nat Geo magazine not so long ago for a story on a new-ish theory on how the monolithic heads were transported and erected on Easter Island to read on a plane trip... I'd have been severely disappointed had that turned out to be a 500 word article.

    I'm the same when it comes to researching and learning online too. When i am looking for something to actually read because i am interested in the topic, it doesn't matter if the article turns into a book, i'll still keep reading if it's well written and presented and is giving me what i wanted when i chose to read it.

    I don't tend to stay on websites long if it's a bunch of 400 and 500 word pages.

    Not sure why i ever thought that was a good way to market my own stuff when it wasn't even anything alike to my own behavior...

    Good old times...
    Great example. Cannot imagine Nat Geo publishing very many
    500 word articles, even with their reputation for superb photos.

    And if you're going to invest your time and effort in building a
    business, do you want it to be like:

    1. Nat Geo
    2. the tabloids

    ???


    ***

    Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

    EZA is a joke. Their editors are semi-literate at best. Please don't take them seriously.
    I don't even use them anymore.
    Signature

    The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

    ...A tachyon enters a bar.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7345610].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tpw
    Originally Posted by yourreviewer View Post

    Is it just me who finds that statement ridiculous and utterly false?

    Ridiculous and utterly false? Absolutely.

    But it is not actually the word count that affects the outcome, but the power of the story.
    Signature
    Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
    Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7346225].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Ten
    Whatever they are saying, or anyone else is saying, I'd like to see good research data to back it up.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7346525].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Martin Avis
      Have you ever eaten popping candy? The stuff that explodes in a galaxy of sensations on your tongue?

      Good writing is like popping candy, except that the explosions are in your mind's eye.

      As a general principle, longer articles allow good writers to fill your mind with a kaleidoscope of thoughts and ideas, which makes for a more satifying read. However, a poor writer, who is just aiming for wordcount without much thought for content doesn't have the same effect at all.

      Wordcount is clearly important for the development of ideas, but it is not the be-all and end-all! Stimulation of thought is what it is about.

      After all, the following six words (attributed to Ernest Hemingway) explode like popping candy in the mind more than many a long article (by a pedestrian writer) ever could:

      "For sale, baby shoes, never worn."
      Signature
      Martin Avis publishes Kickstart Newsletter - Subscribe free at http://kickstartnewsletter.com
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7346628].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author myob
      Originally Posted by Michael Ten View Post

      Whatever they are saying, or anyone else is saying, I'd like to see good research data to back it up.
      You can test this yourself with your own reading audience. If your target demographic is in the "instant gratification" mindset, then 500 words may get clicks from a number of casual readers who, for example, will subscribe to your list for a freebie. But from my own experience in some of the most hotly competitive markets, reader expectations including style and substance are much higher.

      Meeting these expectations (as measured in direct traffic and sales from every article) would be impossible in 500 words. The article length sweet spot appears to be around 1200 words for maximum leverage at the intersection of syndication acceptance standards, reader experience expectations, and conversion of traffic to sales. This approach, writing scintillatingly sesquipedalian articles suitable for syndication, consistently beats the competition all-to-hell.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7347566].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
        A "Buy Now" Button with the words "$10 Bills for Only $5 Each" will outperform
        just about anything.

        Short articles can be very effective, as can long ones.

        Depends on your target market and what you're trying to accomplish.

        Absolutes in this business will KILL you.

        I should make a bumper sticker with that phrase, I've used it so much.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7347819].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
          Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post


          Absolutes in this business will KILL you.
          Especially if you drink too many of them and then drive.

          Sorry, I couldn't resist. :p

          Terra
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7347862].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Chris Worner
    Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

    EZA is a joke. Their editors are semi-literate at best. Please don't take them seriously.
    I always chuckle when I see writers advertising their services using the, "EZA Expert Author...." logo.

    I laugh even harder when I see the prices they charge, like $1 per hundred words.

    -Chris
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7346586].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author BernardR
    I am a big fan of Alexa Smith who in my mind is one of the great authorities on authentic article marketing.

    However I have to say that I only ever write a maximum of 500 words as it seems to generate the best response for me.

    What I am saying is that I was unaware of the Ezine Article write up on this but have discovered through testing that 500 words is about right for my articles and content. I always put videos and images in the mix, plus use formatting to break up the text.

    My best article written a few years ago now and published specifically for clicks (apparently not the way to do it) still has a CTR of between 84 - 86%. My average is over 50% CTR.

    It may just be that I have a completely different approach.

    BernardR
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7346603].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GeorgR.
    Originally Posted by yourreviewer View Post


    http://media.ezinearticles.com/pdf/e...arketing-2.pdf

    Is it just me who finds that statement ridiculous and utterly false?
    I think it's utterly ridiculously generalized, 500 words might work for some things but not for many others.

    Let's say I were to write a concise and good post about "How to do SEO after Panda"...500 words would hardly be enough. And some people WANT in-depth information and not just a short overview.

    Edit: Looking at the source...ah..ok...ezinearticles...
    Signature
    *** Affiliate Site Quick --> The Fastest & Easiest Way to Make Affiliate Sites!<--
    -> VISIT www.1UP-SEO.com *** <- Internet Marketing, SEO Tips, Reviews & More!! ***
    *** HIGH QUALITY CONTENT CREATION +++ Manual Article Spinning (Thread Here) ***
    Content Creation, Blogging, Articles, Converting Sales Copy, Reviews, Ebooks, Rewrites
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7346609].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MKCookins
    I believe length has very little to do with traffic. It is all about value!

    If you can get your point across in 300 words then great, if you need 1000 words then that's great too. As long as you make your point as short and to the point as possible without any fluff.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7347890].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
      With all due respect to Steven and Martin and others, I thought we were talking about articles. Not sentences, slogans, quotes, etc. What you all say is 100% correct and I agree completely, however I don't think I'd consider those articles at all.

      Perhaps what differs here is the the idea of what an article actually is.

      Terra
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7348064].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author myob
        Quite often, "articles" can be summarized in one word. :p

        “There is not much to be said about the period, except that most writers don’t reach it soon enough.”
        - William K. Zinsser, On Writing Well
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7348237].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author fin
        Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

        With all due respect to Steven and Martin and others, I thought we were talking about articles. Not sentences, slogans, quotes, etc. What you all say is 100% correct and I agree completely, however I don't think I'd consider those articles at all.

        Perhaps what differs here is the the idea of what an article actually is.

        Terra
        This is the online world. You're not in Kansas anymore, Dorothy. Time to put feelings about those 2-page spreads out of your head.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7348426].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
          Originally Posted by fin View Post

          This is the online world. You're not in Kansas anymore, Dorothy. Time to put feelings about those 2-page spreads out of your head.
          I'll make a deal with you Fin.

          When my online and offline clients get over those "2-page spreads", then perhaps I will. Until then, however, I will continue to give my clients what they ask for. I'd rather please them than you at this point as it would be much more lucrative for me and just good business sense. Don't ya think, Darlin'?

          Oh, and by the way, I've never been in Kansas for one whole day of my life. :p

          Terra
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7348766].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author fin
            Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

            I'll make a deal with you Fin.

            When my online and offline clients get over those "2-page spreads", then perhaps I will. Until then, however, I will continue to give my clients what they ask for. I'd rather please them than you at this point as it would be much more lucrative for me and just good business sense. Don't ya think, Darlin'?

            Oh, and by the way, I've never been in Kansas for one whole day of my life. :p

            Terra
            I never asked anyone to please me. You should do what your clients ask for.

            People obviously have different opinions, but I think they suffer because they don't take anything else into consideration.

            Take the person who said a short article won't leave the reader emotionally charged. Imagine someone wrote a 2000 word article about what should be included in a great sales page. It could be the best article in the world and leave them emotionally charged.

            The guy's twin brother writes a 400 word article telling someone to make a small tweak in their sales page to get more sales. The reader does it and doubles his conversion rate. Which article do you think is going to get someone more emotionally charged? I know which one I'd choose.

            Sometimes small wins will leave someone more emotionally charged well after they've finished reading.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7348864].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
              Originally Posted by fin View Post

              I never asked anyone to please me. You should do what your clients ask for.

              People obviously have different opinions, but I think they suffer because they don't take anything else into consideration.

              Take the person who said a short article won't leave the reader emotionally charged. Imagine someone wrote a 2000 word article about what should be included in a great sales page. It could be the best article in the world and leave them emotionally charged.

              The guy's twin brother writes a 400 word article telling someone to make a small tweak in their sales page to get more sales. The reader does it and doubles his conversion rate. Which article do you think is going to get someone more emotionally charged? I know which one I'd choose.

              Sometimes small wins will leave someone more emotionally charged well after they've finished reading.
              You do know I was teasing with you, right?

              You have a very valid point as well. And as Frank said, this thread kind of went off on a few rabbit trails from what the OP intended.

              The number one most important thing to do in regards to writing is, you've got to do what proves successful for your own self.

              Terra
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7348981].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Sandra Martinez
              Originally Posted by fin View Post

              I never asked anyone to please me. You should do what your clients ask for.

              People obviously have different opinions, but I think they suffer because they don't take anything else into consideration.

              Take the person who said a short article won't leave the reader emotionally charged. Imagine someone wrote a 2000 word article about what should be included in a great sales page. It could be the best article in the world and leave them emotionally charged.

              The guy's twin brother writes a 400 word article telling someone to make a small tweak in their sales page to get more sales. The reader does it and doubles his conversion rate. Which article do you think is going to get someone more emotionally charged? I know which one I'd choose.

              Sometimes small wins will leave someone more emotionally charged well after they've finished reading.
              Both approaches have its place and they have different targets. Longer articles are done for authority, shorter articles are done for immediate satisfaction. Writers have their strengths. It is great when each one caters the right client and gives results.

              I´m a report/ebook/book writer, almost never write articles for others because I spend the same amount of time researching an ebook than an article. Some of my teasing reports have had crazy conversions. In one occasion people asked for refunds after buying the product because they raised the bar too high (that was not fun...).

              You are probably good at copywriting, great for teasing leading to a buy now button type of article. What is awesome, and what most affiliate marketers want. If this is your strength you might want to consider moving toward copywriting - far more remunerative.

              Sandra
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7349008].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author fin
                Originally Posted by Sandra Martinez View Post

                Longer articles are done for authority, shorter articles are done for immediate satisfaction.
                This isn't right. Well it could be, but you seem to be stating a fact that isn't true. Someone could just as easily be thought of as an authority because they give someone results in each article, rather than take them on this emotional roller coaster than ends with a new perspective on something.

                I'm a fan of both approaches. I'm just defending the shorter articles in this thread.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7349043].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Sandra Martinez
                  Originally Posted by fin View Post

                  This isn't right. Well it could be, but you seem to be stating a fact that isn't true. Someone could just as easily be thought of as an authority because they give someone results in each article, rather than take them on this emotional roller coaster than ends with a new perspective on something.

                  I'm a fan of both approaches. I'm just defending the shorter articles in this thread.
                  I never state facts when giving opinions - what we are all doing here. I apologize if it sounded any other way. If you need me to rephrase it, I do it. No problem.

                  "It is my experience, that in most cases longer articles are done for authority, while shorter articles target an immediate response."

                  Happy now?

                  I have seen short articles used to build authority effectively, but in that case the same problem was targeted from different angles (and they all could be used to build one long article).

                  And Alexa has a lot of experience using long articles that pre-sell effectively. I saw a couple and they are pretty good.

                  So those are exceptions to an observational law - thanks goodness this is not science or I would have to throw the theory through the window.

                  It also depends on the subject, some subjects do not have enough juice to write anything long without fluff. Some others are well.. too complex to write short and actually provide any information whatsoever. The article I mentioned of the 2000 words was about the project MK-Ultra; you could write several books just from the material opened to the public and testimonials. Now, good luck trying to write 500 words about how to care for the hair of a short haired chihuahua.

                  Sandra
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7349147].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author myob
              For optimum conversions when using the article marketing model, it would be extremely helpful to understand some basics in writing sales copy. Consider that your article, in the sense you are attempting to engage the reader enough to click on your call to action, is essentially subtle sales copy. At least it should be.

              As Dan Kennedy said "The person who says ‘I would never read all that copy’ makes the mistake of thinking they are the customer. And they’re not. We are never our own customers. There’s a thing in copywriting I teach called ‘message-to-market match’. It is this: when your message is matched to a target market that has a high level of interest in it, not only does responsiveness go up but readership goes up, too. The whole issue of interest goes up.

              The truth about long copy is that, first of all, there’s abundant, legitimate, statistical research, that’s split-testing research, to indicate that virtually without exception, long copy outperforms short copy. There’s some significant research has been done that indicate that readership falls off dramatically at 300 words but does not again drop off until 3,000 words."

              Long Copy Or Short Copy?
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7349133].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author fin
                Originally Posted by myob View Post

                For optimum conversions when using the article marketing model, it would be extremely helpful to understand some basics in writing sales copy. Consider that your article, in the sense you are attempting to engage the reader enough to click on your call to action, is essentially subtle sales copy. At least it should be.

                As Dan Kennedy said "The person who says ‘I would never read all that copy’ makes the mistake of thinking they are the customer. And they’re not. We are never our own customers. There’s a thing in copywriting I teach called ‘message-to-market match’. It is this: when your message is matched to a target market that has a high level of interest in it, not only does responsiveness go up but readership goes up, too. The whole issue of interest goes up.

                The truth about long copy is that, first of all, there’s abundant, legitimate, statistical research, that’s split-testing research, to indicate that virtually without exception, long copy outperforms short copy. There’s some significant research has been done that indicate that readership falls off dramatically at 300 words but does not again drop off until 3,000 words."

                Long Copy Or Short Copy?
                And I can throw up a split-test that's got a higher conversion rate with short copy - Does your landing page collect emails? A shorter page may increase signups by 13% « I love split testing – Visual Website Optimizer Blog

                I think it just proves nothing is definite and people that deal in absolutes don't get it.

                I can understand why people who write eBooks would prefer to add words that maybe don't need to be there. When you get more money for extra words it seems pretty obvious you would defend it.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7349161].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Sandra Martinez
                  Originally Posted by fin View Post


                  I can understand why people who write eBooks would prefer to add words that maybe don't need to be there. When you get more money for extra words it seems pretty obvious you would defend it.
                  Was that for me? if it was... well, it is evident you don´t know me one bit. And... that you are on the group who would say anything to prove a point. I´m done.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7349199].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author ajbarnes777
                  The way I look at it is that there is no "etched in stone" method...

                  I write super long articles (just finished a 2,000 word article today speaking of which), and I write several shorter (4-700 word) articles as well. No matter the length, a high percentage of my content has performed pretty well over the years...

                  I never determine how long my article is going to be. My focus when I open up Wordpad to write is to make sure that whatever shows up on the screen is high quality and that it helps the reader in whatever way I promised in the title. Sometimes I can achieve this with a 535 word article, and sometimes it has to stretch out to 1,287 words...
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7349227].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
                  Banned
                  Originally Posted by fin View Post

                  I think it just proves nothing is definite and people that deal in absolutes don't get it.
                  I have no argument with that, at all.

                  But it's terribly easy (for people reading the thread, and other threads - not for you and me) to confuse two very different things, here ...

                  1. What length of article will work best?

                  2. What length of article will be published most, in relevant places where our already highly targeted traffic is (that excludes article directories!)?

                  To over-simplify: a 500-word article that might "work better" than a 1,000-word article is no use to me, because I can't get it read by the people I want to attract.

                  On my own site, yes ... no problem. The traffic's already there.

                  But there's no point in my putting a 500-word article in Ezine Articles because nobody's going to re-publish it, and it's obviously not going to make me any money worth talking about by sitting un-syndicated in an article directory, is it?! :p

                  (For the record: I'm probably exaggerating slightly, to make my point, and I admit it).

                  Originally Posted by fin View Post

                  You can.

                  And you did.

                  It's pretty interesting, too. But unlike this thread, it isn't about articles. :p
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7349260].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author fin
                    Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

                    I have no argument with that, at all.

                    But it's terribly easy (for people reading the thread, and other threads - not for you and me) to confuse two very different things, here ...

                    1. What length of article will work best?

                    2. What length of article will be published most, in relevant places where our already highly targeted traffic is (that excludes article directories!)?

                    To over-simplify: a 500-word article that might "work better" than a 1,000-word article is no use to me, because I can't get it read by the people I want to attract.

                    On my own site, yes ... no problem. The traffic's already there.

                    But there's no point in my putting a 500-word article in Ezine Articles because nobody's going to re-publish it, and it's obviously not going to make me any money worth talking about by sitting un-syndicated in an article directory, is it?! :p



                    You can.

                    And you did.

                    But unlike this thread, it isn't about articles. :p
                    I think people need to test things for themselves. If people understand that it's great. There's been some strong arguments for long articles so maybe they can test them first, but to discount short articles could be a mistake.

                    I know you're bringing syndicated content into it because it was mentioned in the OP, but it seems the thread has evolved and posts/sales pages have to be taken into consideration to reflect that.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7349283].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author cashp0wer
            I don't mind 1,000 word articles if they are well written and not just full of filler content. Sometimes, however, a 500 word article is enough. It all depends on the topic, etc. I definitely do not agree with their statement though.
            Signature
            My Internet Marketing Blog - Warts And All!
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7349166].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author tpw
            Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

            Oh, and by the way, I've never been in Kansas for one whole day of my life. :p

            Terra

            You are not missing much...

            To tell the truth, Kansas sucks!! LOL

            Kansas is the only reason that Oklahoma and Texas don't fall into the Gulf of Mexico. :p
            Signature
            Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
            Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7349424].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author FredJones
            Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

            I think it is utter nonsense too, well, unless your site caters to those suffering from Attention Deficit Disorders.
            Terra you've said it in what I think to be nothing short of a brilliant comment. I feel, the advice of short articles and "long articles at least as much as 500 words" come from people who cannot think beyond SEO (and SEO is also easier for longer articles in my opinion), and go to people who are not never deep enough in taking the time to understand what the customers in their market need to know. So yes, it is attention deficit disorder, suffered by the writer of the article. And this is what I guess we call "cookie-cutter" articles for all real life purposes.

            Originally Posted by Sandra Martinez View Post

            A 500 words article gives you a taste of whatever you are writing about, you can´t give any real information in that length for most subjects.

            The last article I wrote was 2000 words, and one guy asked me to expand on some of the sub items... sigh
            You bet. While I practically always write my own articles, once it had so happened that I had outsourced a deal to another Warrior who had designed a site for me with Thesis, written the home page article (1,200-odd words from what I remember) and had SEO'd it till he reached the top of the second page (and I think the deal was the first page within a timeline, which he could not manage in spite of 2 extended months). The point here is that the niche was something (a physical product) that I have been selling since 2009, and that 1,200-or-so length article had simply seemed to be insufficient for me in terms of content. Not the length, but the material inside it. Any SEO person would be delighted with the length, but I knew that it was not enough for buyers. I had to expand many sections of it (and this time I did it myself) before I was happy with it. I think it came to 1,800-2,000 odd words, from what I remember.

            Originally Posted by clever7 View Post

            It’s very hard to write something meaningful in only a few words, but if you can do that, you should do it.

            I always believed that long articles attract more readers, but there are all kinds of readers online. There are also readers who hate long articles.

            You should write articles of all sizes. A short 450 word article can be more attractive than a 1000 word article about a certain topic. A very long 3000 word article can be far superior and attract numerous readers because you are giving away important information you could even charge for.

            EZA’s rules and their blog, their guidelines, etc, are far from being helpful. They care about volume. This is why they encourage all authors to write short articles, which are simple.

            If they would tell you that you have to spend three hours writing a quality article with real lessons perhaps you would immediately conclude that you should do something else to get traffic instead of wasting your time with article writing. This is why they tell you that short articles are the best ones. They hope you’ll write many short articles per day instead of writing one long article per week.

            Their interest is to get people to their website, and not to send people to your website. This is their secondary intention since if you'll never get traffic you’ll stop writing articles, but for you, this is your basic intention. You only want to send traffic to your links.

            You don’t want to make people read your article and then look for a better one at EZA because your article is not good enough.
            ^^ Interesting perspective... Especially, the last line.

            Originally Posted by Chris Worner View Post

            I always chuckle when I see writers advertising their services using the, "EZA Expert Author...." logo.

            I laugh even harder when I see the prices they charge, like $1 per hundred words.

            -Chris
            ^^ But you know what? EZA accepts all kinds of articles, and their articles get published. And there's no way to track how many sales are because of EZA, unless you are publishing nowhere else (which is impractical formost cases). So its easy for them to get away with it...

            Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

            A "Buy Now" Button with the words "$10 Bills for Only $5 Each" will outperform just about anything.
            Interesting. I am going to test this slogan soon enough with my WF signature link.
            Signature

            $1 gold: WSO That Instantly Transforms You Into A Content Production Engine

            $2.95 GoDaddy .com domains today: Click here.
            I am offering a free website - get it now (and they offer you a free domain with this).
            Find high-commission easy Amazon niches within 5 seconds here.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7350126].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author absoluteallen
              Really?

              That's like saying "A V-6 will always outperform a V-8." To take it even further, I've seen some 4-cylinder Honda Civics take Corvettes in the 1/4 mile, but, they are highly "souped the hell up!"

              It's all subjective to the type of reader you're proposing your articles to. Not everyone wants to sit and read long articles (has nothing to do with ADD). Not everyone feels like they get enough information with a 500 word article.

              I'm thinking; sites like TMZ don't need to pour out 1,000 word articles to make a statement, unlike the WebMD's of the net. It's about testing, targeting.

              I think, some writers feel like they aren't professional enough unless they over-produce "length wise" in their articles. Not all of us care to spend a ton of time on something that could of been summarized.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7350965].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Martin Avis
                There seems to be a commonly held, but in my opinion misinformed, view that people will not read long things online. I often see pundits opining that because it is supposedly difficult to read from a screen, readers' attention spans are impaired.

                The inevitable solution proposed is to keep your writing short, sharp and pithy.

                I have probably been guilty of giving such advice myself over the years, but on reflection it is a very lazy proposition that flies in the face of the simple truth: people actually do read long writing.

                There is a caveat though: it is the responsibility of the writer to make their long writing attractive, enticing, entertaining and informative enough to grab hold of the readers' attention and not let go.

                Paul Myers writes huge emails, but I've never heard anyone suggest he would be better off condensing his bon mots into 250 words. To a lesser extent my own newsletters tend to run on and on, but I often get responses to parts of the messages 2000 words in so it seems my readers don't suffer much from the ubiquitous attention span deficiency we hear about so often either.

                Of course, if I - or Paul - have something to say that only requires 250 words to convey, that's what we'll do.

                Long form sales letters still work really well - when they are written really well. If you were to ask me I would say I don't like them myself, but the truth is that I have read many a well crafted sales letter right to the end and not even realised it was 5000 words long!

                The same can be said of long articles.

                But the key to it all is the standard of the writing. Poor writing mumbles; good writing speaks to you; great writing sings.

                Writing length is only a problem when the act of reading is more noticeable than the content.

                A poor writer can seldom sustain their own interest, let alone their readers', beyond the first few lines and so should not be encouraged to prolong the agony. Teach them technique before you teach them wordlength, please.

                Martin
                Signature
                Martin Avis publishes Kickstart Newsletter - Subscribe free at http://kickstartnewsletter.com
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7351275].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author fin
                  Originally Posted by Martin.Avis View Post

                  There seems to be a commonly held, but in my opinion misinformed, view that people will not read long things online. I often see pundits opining that because it is supposedly difficult to read from a screen, readers' attention spans are impaired.

                  The inevitable solution proposed is to keep your writing short, sharp and pithy.

                  I have probably been guilty of giving such advice myself over the years, but on reflection it is a very lazy proposition that flies in the face of the simple truth: people actually do read long writing.

                  There is a caveat though: it is the responsibility of the writer to make their long writing attractive, enticing, entertaining and informative enough to grab hold of the readers' attention and not let go.

                  Paul Myers writes huge emails, but I've never heard anyone suggest he would be better off condensing his bon mots into 250 words. To a lesser extent my own newsletters tend to run on and on, but I often get responses to parts of the messages 2000 words in so it seems my readers don't suffer much from the ubiquitous attention span deficiency we hear about so often either.

                  Of course, if I - or Paul - have something to say that only requires 250 words to convey, that's what we'll do.

                  Long form sales letters still work really well - when they are written really well. If you were to ask me I would say I don't like them myself, but the truth is that I have read many a well crafted sales letter right to the end and not even realised it was 5000 words long!

                  The same can be said of long articles.

                  But the key to it all is the standard of the writing. Poor writing mumbles; good writing speaks to you; great writing sings.

                  Writing length is only a problem when the act of reading is more noticeable than the content.

                  A poor writer can seldom sustain their own interest, let alone their readers', beyond the first few lines and so should not be encouraged to prolong the agony. Teach them technique before you teach them wordlength, please.

                  Martin
                  So you're saying people should write as much as they need to?

                  It's kind of ironic that it took 500 words lol.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7351372].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Martin Avis
                    Originally Posted by fin View Post

                    So you're saying people should write as much as they need to?

                    It's kind of ironic that it took 500 words lol.
                    Did it? I didn't count.
                    Signature
                    Martin Avis publishes Kickstart Newsletter - Subscribe free at http://kickstartnewsletter.com
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7351388].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author FredJones
                    Originally Posted by fin View Post

                    So you're saying people should write as much as they need to?

                    It's kind of ironic that it took 500 words lol.
                    No, it took 360 words, I measured it now after reading your post. LOL...
                    Signature

                    $1 gold: WSO That Instantly Transforms You Into A Content Production Engine

                    $2.95 GoDaddy .com domains today: Click here.
                    I am offering a free website - get it now (and they offer you a free domain with this).
                    Find high-commission easy Amazon niches within 5 seconds here.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7352403].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author FredJones
                  Originally Posted by Martin.Avis View Post

                  Long form sales letters still work really well - when they are written really well. If you were to ask me I would say I don't like them myself, but the truth is that I have read many a well crafted sales letter right to the end and not even realised it was 5000 words long!

                  The same can be said of long articles.

                  But the key to it all is the standard of the writing. Poor writing mumbles; good writing speaks to you; great writing sings.

                  Writing length is only a problem when the act of reading is more noticeable than the content.

                  A poor writer can seldom sustain their own interest, let alone their readers', beyond the first few lines and so should not be encouraged to prolong the agony. Teach them technique before you teach them wordlength, please.

                  Martin
                  Precisely. A well-written piece of content will ask only for more writing. The real reader will look to read more rather than stop reading. They will want to read till they know exactly what is meant to be read by them, and exactly to the depth so that they know enough to feel comfortable. And the right writing will not only start properly and flow naturally, but it will also stop smoothly rather than screeching to an abrupt halt when the halt was completely uncalled for...

                  Interestingly, whenever I come to a topic that I can talk about with authority, I mostly find stopping within 500 words to be a difficult task without cutting the message down, unless the message merits 500 words.

                  In summary, one should write the message to exactly the length that it merits, neither more nor less.
                  Signature

                  $1 gold: WSO That Instantly Transforms You Into A Content Production Engine

                  $2.95 GoDaddy .com domains today: Click here.
                  I am offering a free website - get it now (and they offer you a free domain with this).
                  Find high-commission easy Amazon niches within 5 seconds here.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7352394].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Sandra Martinez
              Originally Posted by FredJones View Post

              You bet. While I practically always write my own articles, once it had so happened that I had outsourced a deal to another Warrior who had designed a site for me with Thesis, written the home page article (1,200-odd words from what I remember) and had SEO'd it till he reached the top of the second page (and I think the deal was the first page within a timeline, which he could not manage in spite of 2 extended months). The point here is that the niche was something (a physical product) that I have been selling since 2009, and that 1,200-or-so length article had simply seemed to be insufficient for me in terms of content. Not the length, but the material inside it. Any SEO person would be delighted with the length, but I knew that it was not enough for buyers. I had to expand many sections of it (and this time I did it myself) before I was happy with it. I think it came to 1,800-2,000 odd words, from what I remember.
              It makes sense. The more you know about a subject, the more you have to say about it. If you have been selling the product for so long, your have a deep understanding on it. The person you hired could be a great writer but didn´t have the experience you had with the product, 1200 words is a good size article.

              This 2000 article I wrote was a test that didn´t go through, and the person who asked me to expand was a friend who really knows about the subject.

              The size is also tied up with the persona you create around the article. A sharp and witty character will write shorter articles than a softer one. There are only so many punches in the stomach a person can take reading. When I am emotionally charged and have a single point I want to come across, the articles are not long.When I am delivering information or telling a tale, they are usually longer.

              Sandra
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7351635].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Strasburgo
            The problem here is always.

            500 beats 1,000 and 1,000 beats 500, it depends.

            Stras
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7368518].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Frank Donovan
        Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

        With all due respect to Steven and Martin and others, I thought we were talking about articles. Not sentences, slogans, quotes, etc. What you all say is 100% correct and I agree completely, however I don't think I'd consider those articles at all.
        Quite right, Terra. This thread has veered toward a discussion about effective writing and, for sure, some good points have been made. But the EZA line was taken from a tutorial on writing articles for syndication. As such, it was ridiculous for them to claim that a shorter piece always outperforms a longer one. Nearly all publishers (the targets for syndication) are likely to prefer the longer article, all else being equal.


        Frank
        Signature
        I've just put Richard Branson's number on speed-dial. I call it my "Get-Rich-Quick" scheme.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7348780].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Frank Donovan View Post

          the EZA line was taken from a tutorial on writing articles for syndication. As such, it was ridiculous for them to claim that a shorter piece always outperforms a longer one. Nearly all publishers (the targets for syndication) are likely to prefer the longer article, all else being equal.
          This. Exactly. It's simply factual.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7349097].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author alextheseo
    It sounds like they failed to lay out certain details. Both can perform well and both can perform horribly. The information being delivered is what counts. A 500 word article overall would be better preferred, but it has to make and impact. The same goes for a 1000 word article. If they are informative and attention grabbing, then they'll both be read regardless of the length. :-0)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7349158].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author kingroom
    Originally Posted by yourreviewer View Post

    I just stumbled upon an article syndication pdf in Ezinearticles in which they state the following,

    Be Clear & Concise in Your Writing: A 500 word article will always outperform a 1000 word article. You are writing for a medium that embraces instant gratification: the Internet. Keep your articles clear and concise, so the reader can quickly comprehend the quality content you are sharing.

    You can find the source in the link below.

    http://media.ezinearticles.com/pdf/e...arketing-2.pdf

    Is it just me who finds that statement ridiculous and utterly false?
    A storybook or an article?
    Boy, any article with more than 250-400 word ain't for me. I always wanna get points direct, nothing more.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7349269].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Larry Leggett
    When I start writing an article, I found it very hard to manage it within 500 words. It easily cross 700 words within 20 minutes. To be honest, I personally do not like to read a long article then how can expect my readers will do?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7349540].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tpw
      Originally Posted by Larry Leggett View Post

      When I start writing an article, I found it very hard to manage it within 500 words. It easily cross 700 words within 20 minutes. To be honest, I personally do not like to read a long article then how can expect my readers will do?

      I have no idea how book authors do it either...

      Getting a lazy person to read a 100,000 word book just seems so challenging that it just doesn't make any sense at all to try to write a book... :rolleyes:
      Signature
      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7349769].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author celente
    WOW alexa stuff is awesome.

    I have found 850 - 1000 word articles the best...and will perform better if they are high quality. And not SEO' stuffed.

    But the real power comes when you syndicate these to blogs, forums, ezines, online niches sites, offline publications, newsletters and all the rest.

    You need targeted eyeballs.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7350065].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 300SMG
    The best articles don't have a word count. As long as the writer can make their point, get the opinion across, inform the reader and make them think - it's a truly successful article. My .02
    Signature

    Don't focus on the money - focus on the plan!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7351332].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    A 500 word article will always outperform a 1000 word article

    You'll have even better results with a 499 word article!
    Signature
    Be your best self. - Darryl Philbin
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7351369].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author fin
    I just guessed.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7351433].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author brunom
    If it's high quality, I've seen longer articles outperform shorter ones. But maybe it's just me.
    Signature
    1500 Backlinks For Youtube Videos

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7351556].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author eman2011
    500 words articles are better. More than that is simply boring for most people to read through. Myself included.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7352423].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author FredJones
      Originally Posted by eman2011 View Post

      500 words articles are better. More than that is simply boring for most people to read through. Myself included.
      Strange... Forget marketing articles. Did you read any article when you were planning your last vacation destination? Did you read any review article when you purchased your mobile phone? Did you ever read up Wikipedia for any information seeking on any topic that had interested you for any reason?

      If the answer to any of the above is yes then did you ever check the article length in any case? Or, would you want to go back and check?

      I hope you didn't say no to all the questions above and all the questions that are alike to the ones above?
      Signature

      $1 gold: WSO That Instantly Transforms You Into A Content Production Engine

      $2.95 GoDaddy .com domains today: Click here.
      I am offering a free website - get it now (and they offer you a free domain with this).
      Find high-commission easy Amazon niches within 5 seconds here.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7352461].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by FredJones View Post

        did you ever check the article length in any case?
        I don't think anyone's suggesting that, Fred, are they?

        Those (especially Wiki) are perhaps a little different from what we're discussing here, but in quite a significant way: one of the points being made here isn't so much about whether readers check the length of articles, it's about whether shorter articles will be published in the first place where the readers we want are looking.

        As I said above (and I did admit that I was exaggerating slightly): a 500-word article is fine for my own site. But it's no use to me for article marketing, because I can't get it published in the right places.

        To take a fictional example: if my niche is cauliflower soup recipes, I want my articles to be read by the subscribers of the "cauliflower soup ezine" and the visitors to the "cauliflower soup website". My point is simply that the publisher of the ezine, and the WebMaster of the site will publish a 1,000 word article but not a 500-word one.

        I've been doing this almost every day for years, and that's my experience, and (as has been made so clear in many other discussions of article length) it's many other article marketers' experience, too.

        I've labored my argument a little, but I'm sure you take my point? "My reader" may not care at all (and may not necessarily even notice) whether the article he reads is 500 words or 1,000 words. But I often can't get it as far as his eyes if it's only 500 words.

        It seems pretty much incontrovertible, to me?

        There's "the hard way" and "the easy way", with article marketing. The difference between the two is typically the difference between making a living (and building a real, asset-based business), and not making a living (and building nothing). The hard way - and it's very, very difficult indeed - is to try to draw targeted traffic to your articles. The easy way is to put your articles where the targeted traffic already is, and use the articles to draw the traffic from there to your own site. Long experience has taught many of us that to all intents and purposes you can't use the easy way very much with short articles.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7352582].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
          When I read articles whether online or off, if the article has nothing but point blank lines of facts, I won't remember a word of it. It's dull, boring, dry, lackluster and takes me back to a lecture hall with Professor Schmedley droning on in monotone. I zone out.

          It was a waste of my time. However, if the piece had some character, some personality, it held my attention and I retained the information. That is why I always was at the library searching for books or articles on the that same subject matter that weren't just fact after fact. Those types of articles remind me of all the "cool" professors.

          I know people say you are not your market, but I am not so pompous as to believe that I am the only one on earth that is so unique that no one else has any traits similar to mine. If I enjoy and prefer that type of writing, I'm confidant others do as well.

          Yes, I know people that say they like just the facts only. However, via my testing, when I presented those people with two pieces, one short with just matter of fact facts and another longer piece with the same facts but presented with personality and character, they in the end, admitted it was a more enjoyable and memorable read.

          I tested and those were the results. That's all I'm saying is that you must test. By those tests and by others who have tested like Alexa, we found the longer creative pieces to be more successful in meeting the purpose of that said content.

          I'm quite sure there are some readers that may pass my pieces by if they only want bullet point type articles, but they are in the minority.

          They are also in the minority of my clients' readers as well.

          Am I saying short information only articles don't work? No. I'm saying short informational articles don't work for me.

          Terra
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7352671].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author fin
            Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

            When I read articles whether online or off, if the article has nothing but point blank lines of facts, I won't remember a word of it. It's dull, boring, dry, lackluster and takes me back to a lecture hall with Professor Schmedley droning on in monotone. I zone out.

            It was a waste of my time. However, if the piece had some character, some personality, it held my attention and I retained the information. That is why I always was at the library searching for books or articles on the that same subject matter that weren't just fact after fact. Those types of articles remind me of all the "cool" professors.

            I know people say you are not your market, but I am not so pompous as to believe that I am the only one on earth that is so unique that no one else has any traits similar to mine. If I enjoy and prefer that type of writing, I'm confidant others do as well.

            Yes, I know people that say they like just the facts only. However, via my testing, when I presented those people with two pieces, one short with just matter of fact facts and another longer piece with the same facts but presented with personality and character, they in the end, admitted it was a more enjoyable and memorable read.

            I tested and those were the results. That's all I'm saying is that you must test. By those tests and by others who have tested like Alexa, we found the longer creative pieces to be more successful in meeting the purpose of that said content.

            I'm quite sure there are some readers that may pass my pieces by if they only want bullet point type articles, but they are in the minority.

            They are also in the minority of my clients' readers as well.

            Am I saying short information only articles don't work? No. I'm saying short informational articles don't work for me.

            Terra
            I'm just trying to wind you up now 'cause I know you're game for a debate, BUT...

            nothing but point blank lines of facts
            Since when were short articles nothing but lines of facts?

            another longer piece with the same facts but presented with personality and character
            Can a longer article have more personality and character? Surely the way it's presented is the personality and character, so they both have the same.

            longer creative pieces
            Maybe if you tested them against shorter creative pieces you would get different results.:p
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7352720].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
              Originally Posted by fin View Post

              I'm just trying to wind you up now 'cause I know you're game for a debate, BUT...

              Since when were short articles nothing but lines of facts?
              I never said they were. I only tested people who said they prefer short articles with just facts.

              Originally Posted by fin View Post

              Can a longer article have more personality and character? Surely the way it's presented is the personality and character, so they both have the same.
              I personally find it extremely difficult to write a short article of 500 words or less presenting all of the facts with the personality and character infused in them as well. I can do it, I have done it for a rare few clients and they loved them, but I find it difficult and actually spend more time writing that type of article. Also, I personally find way down deep in my inner most self, feeling that I could have done better for that client.

              Originally Posted by fin View Post

              Maybe if you tested them against shorter creative pieces you would get different results.:p
              Again, I only tested with those that said they prefer short to the point facts type of articles. However, as in my last statement above, it can be done and with great client satisfaction. But those clients are in the minority for me anyway. :p

              Terra
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7352807].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author FredJones
          Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

          I don't think anyone's suggesting that, Fred, are they?
          All I mean by that is, if a reader is interested in an article, s/he will read it, even if it is "long" (1000+ words or whatever merits to be called long in the given context).

          It won't probably get boring just because of the length of something more is than 500 words, which is what the post that I quoted appeared to suggest (in my understanding).

          It may get boring because of the way it is written or for any other reason of course - but not for the legitimate reason of having written a brilliant and informative article that happened to be longer than 500 words...
          Signature

          $1 gold: WSO That Instantly Transforms You Into A Content Production Engine

          $2.95 GoDaddy .com domains today: Click here.
          I am offering a free website - get it now (and they offer you a free domain with this).
          Find high-commission easy Amazon niches within 5 seconds here.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7360790].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tpw
      Originally Posted by eman2011 View Post

      500 words articles are better. More than that is simply boring for most people to read through. Myself included.

      It is a shame that you did not read any other post in this thread after the first one before responding...

      If I am wrong and you did read more than one post, then you read more than 500 words and was better off for the experience.
      Signature
      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7353024].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AigulErali
    I am a firm believer that there isn’t a “right” length for all articles. To me, you write what is needed to cover the topic of the article. I think it depends on the subject.

    From an SEO perspective, articles under 400 words will get rejected. About 750 words is the sweet spot for me. The minimum word count for me is 500 words.That way you will be able to past a message accross and still keep your convertion rate high.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7352442].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author joedav
    Probably a 700 word article could be optimal. 500 would be too short to have more than 2 links in it. A 1000 word article may be too long to keep readers interested. The optimal length could be about 700 to 750 words. It can have a link to a authority site and a back link to another of your sites and a link back to the same site home page.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7352594].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MusicMinCoach
    I'm glad to read this and see that most of yo disagree. I was told something similar once, that people won't read an article over 500 words. I haven't found that to be the case with mine, which hover around 1000 and sometimes more. It's isn't fluff though, it's real training. And people comment all the time about how much they love getting the e-mails.

    But a great point was made earlier. There are no absolutes. I've read short articles I wished had said more, and I've read long ones that I just wanted to be done with.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7352721].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author pamon
    read that, and as an article writer and freelance writer kind of agree. most people don't have time to read a 1000 word article. if you can knock it out of the park with an awesome 500 word piece that isn't overflowing with keywords, you have a winner.
    Signature

    Freelance Writer & Blogger For Hire. US based. Awesome Rates. Check out http://about.me/davidamodt for samples & more.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7353312].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author myob
      But really, what are the chances that a 500 word article will be syndicated? This metric is an integral factor for measuring overall article performance. For maximum article performance, there really are minimum standards that must be met, including reader and publisher expectations. In writing for syndication, take into consideration not only what publishers require, but also expectations of the readership audience.

      In my experience, long articles drive more targeted traffic - both in quantity and quality. Many publishers have minimum word requirements. And there does seem to be a subtle perception that long articles are more substantive, which tends to confer a sort of "assumptive authority". In competitive niches, article length can be the razor's edge for engaging the reader enough to respond favorably to a call to action.

      The marketing model of article syndication - writing to directly engage targeted readers with the leverage of strategic alliances through syndicated partners, is extremely powerful. Assuming the article has other positive engaging factors relevant to the reader, and coupled with the leverage achieved through syndication, it can drive massive highly targeted traffic.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7353736].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MrDay
    "A 500 word article will always outperform a 1000 word article"

    Yeah, I know, just ask Seth Godin.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7353772].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kevin McNally
    A 500 word article will always outperform a 1000 word article
    This is the title of the thread but I think many have missed the point.

    I prefer to read longer content myself but that doesn't mean a longer article will outperform a shorter article.

    The only way you can really answer is to actually test it with some data and measure results.

    Also, all articles don't have to be syndicated to provide a better return on investment so I have no idea why so many people are obsessed with this whenever articles are mentioned.

    Let's say you do a powerful content rich 500 word article and publish it on the warrior forum where it ranks position 1 in google. Then complete a 1000 word article and send it to publishers to syndicate. Depending on your niche it's unlikely that any of these guys will outrank your original article so you are depending on their lists and readers to visit your website.

    Of course if you get an article published on a site or newsletter with a million people reading then you have hit a home run but not many people can do that.

    The obvious answer is also that a 1000 word article will rank for more keywords also.

    I prefer longer articles and spend time reading various topics on sites like the BBC and Wikipedia so these sites have performed although in many cases it's subjective as they haven't performed if you are measuring monetization.
    Signature
    > $164 Earnings In Under 48 Hours ? Click Here for More Info
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7361006].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author kakucis
    500 word articles are better for users but when it comes to Google search you need to have at least 1000 word articles to make then rank well.
    Of course ranking consists of many different things but Google loves longer articles. Of course it is not the best way to measure the quality of article but fact still remains and we can't do anything about it.

    If you are still working on small websites with few hundred articles with 300-400 words each then you will never make them rank well in Google.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7361049].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kevin McNally
    when it comes to Google search you need to have at least 1000 word articles to make then rank well.
    So I am screwed if I have 900 word article ?
    Signature
    > $164 Earnings In Under 48 Hours ? Click Here for More Info
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7361121].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author kakucis
      Originally Posted by Kevin McNally View Post

      So I am screwed if I have 900 word article ?
      Don't take it out of the context

      900 word article will rank better than 500 word article. Of course there are many different ranking factors but "longer is better" rule work very well on Google.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7361140].message }}
      • Originally Posted by kakucis View Post

        900 word article will rank better than 500 word article. Of course there are many different ranking factors but "longer is better" rule work very well on Google.
        Can you kindly share verifiable proof that can substantiate this "claim", if you don't mind? I'm particularly interested in your "very well" phrase there. Anyway:

        For those who want to test this out, here's what I suggest that might work:

        1. Create two keywords for this test. Say "DXV9F mechanical squirrel" and "EWX7KJ robot beaver".

        2. Set up two brand new blogspot accounts. Use those keywords in the blog name.

        3. Create a 900++-word post in the mechanical squirrel blogspot account. Use the keyword in the title, preferably in the leftmost section of the title, then use it again in the first sentence of the first paragraph, once in the last sentence of the paragraph, once as a subheader before the last paragraph and once anywhere between the first and last paragraphs. Come up with two LSI keywords. Mention one in the first paragraph, one in the last paragraph and both once anywhere between the first and last paragraphs. Publish the post.

        4. Create a 500++-word post in the robot beaver blogspot account. Do the same things mentioned above. Keep in mind to integrate the same content depth and writing tone and style into both posts.

        5. Use your sig here to link to both posts, each one anchored by those keywords.

        6. Let it sit for a day or two or three or or or.

        7. Share the results in this thread.

        You can also do some tweaks to test out other things, like changing keyword placement frequency, varying length of posts, removing one of your sig links, adding a link in a relevant forum, or perhaps sharing one post in Facebook and so on. You can document your results to further test what you could most likely use...
        Signature

        We're Using Artificial Intelligence to Empower the Blind - Click HERE to Learn More
        CRAZY $6 SALE! Click HERE to Get 1K Words of Original Content in 36 Hours - GUARANTEED!

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7370544].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Anton543
    All sorts of combinations until you have achieved what you wanted to. Don't just fill in unnecessary words as filler to get the article over a certain length. Write naturally. Don't inject keywords all over the place. They read horribly.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7361298].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JennyBird
    I think it really depends on the engagement level of the article. Obviously 500 words would be more to the point but sometimes 1000+ words are needed to thoroughly cover a topic. Longer, engaging posts with different media (pictures or video clips) mixed in have done the best for me.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7361312].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Stuart Walker
    It doesn't matter how many words are in the article if the content is terrible. Can be 500 words or 1000 words of garbage. A good article is a good article regardless of the word count.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7361598].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author johndetlefs
    It'd be interesting to see what the average word count is for an entry on Wikipedia (arguably a very popular article site).

    I know that for me, I much prefer a loooong Wikipedia post with lots of information so that I can learn as much as possible about the topic.

    500 words wouldn't cut it for most entries I suspect, and Wikipedia seems to do fairly well in the search engines.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7361817].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Anton543
      Originally Posted by johndetlefs View Post

      It'd be interesting to see what the average word count is for an entry on Wikipedia (arguably a very popular article site).

      I know that for me, I much prefer a loooong Wikipedia post with lots of information so that I can learn as much as possible about the topic.

      500 words wouldn't cut it for most entries I suspect, and Wikipedia seems to do fairly well in the search engines.
      You are right. Articles of any length can be good, but its not always easy to do justice to even micro topics with only 500 words, especially if you be analytical with it.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7361842].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author betterwtveter
    It actually depends on the content. If it is really good content that needs to be about 1000 words, than go ahead, but is not all that necessary.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7361863].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
    This is really simple... If you are here to benefit
    from the experience of others, pay attention to
    what the more experienced, very successful people
    in this forum keep spelling out for you: These are
    the real facts, the reality, based on actual experience
    from the people who are actually doing it:


    Article Syndication vs. Article Search Engine Ranking:
    Proper syndication wins easily, again and again, by far.

    Syndicating articles, 500 words vs. 1000 words:
    1000 words wins easily, again and again, by far.



    ***
    So please, for the sake of my sanity, stop with the:


    1. Advice on how to get articles ranked in search engines.
    (Search engine traffic is terrible compared to article syndication traffic!)

    2. Debates about whether a 500 word article can be quality and catchy.
    (We know it can, but that is just not the point at all!-- see below)

    3. Debates over whether you or anyone else read longer articles.
    (It doesn't matter, it is what publishers and their readers want!!!)
    Signature

    The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

    ...A tachyon enters a bar.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7367596].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author fin
      Originally Posted by MikeTucker View Post

      This is really simple... If you are here to benefit
      from the experience of others, pay attention to
      what the more experienced, very successful people
      in this forum keep spelling out for you: These are
      the real facts, the reality, based on actual experience
      from the people who are actually doing it:


      Article Syndication vs. Article Search Engine Ranking:
      Proper syndication wins easily, again and again, by far.

      Syndicating articles, 500 words vs. 1000 words:
      1000 words wins easily, again and again, by far.



      ***
      So please, for the sake of my sanity, stop with the:


      1. Advice on how to get articles ranked in search engines.
      (Search engine traffic is terrible compared to article syndication traffic!)

      2. Debates about whether a 500 word article can be quality and catchy.
      (We know it can, but that is just not the point at all!-- see below)

      3. Debates over whether you or anyone else read longer articles.
      (It doesn't matter, it is what publishers and their readers want!!!)
      This is the craziest post I've ever seen written in my entire time on the forum.

      Do you realize that there is hugely successful people making massive amounts of money from every traffic generation method ever invented, and some that you don't know about.

      I can mention at least 50 people who are making great money with search engine traffic - including proof.

      Can you name one person who is making great money with syndicating/guest posting articles - including proof.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7370125].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
        Oh my goodness, this thread is still going strong.

        I suppose because it is opinion driven and every one has one. It does remind me of a movie my kids loved when they were young, named The Never Ending Story.

        It was long and very well written, by the way. :p

        Terra
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7370155].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author fin
          Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

          Oh my goodness, this thread is still going strong.

          I suppose because it is opinion driven and every one has one. It does remind me of a movie my kids loved when they were young, named The Never Ending Story.

          It was long and very well written, by the way. :p

          Terra
          You're right.

          It wouldn't still be going if people hid their opinions for a minute and accepted people use different methods to run a business.

          I really can't see why people need to say anything other than try it for yourself and see what works.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7370182].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Sandra Martinez
          Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

          Oh my goodness, this thread is still going strong.

          I suppose because it is opinion driven and every one has one. It does remind me of a movie my kids loved when they were young, named The Never Ending Story.

          It was long and very well written, by the way. :p

          Terra
          I loved the book.

          There is a bit more to the tail, maybe (?).

          Articles for marketing are tools. I would love them to be seen as something more than a means to an end, but this is not the place for it.

          Being a means to an end, the only judge of quality is the bank account (think Hollywood ).

          I feel it is natural for those with love for writing - who work for themselves - to indulge and follow the syndication route. It is far more rewarding than spamming with articles for backlinks. And those people will make far more money using the syndication system than spamming.

          It is also natural for those who are in business and market to people instead of numbers to follow the same route. These are the marketers who hire high ticket writers, because these writers know how to engage their public and create the feeling of intimacy that build relationships. And these marketers make money using this system, it works for THEM.

          On the other hand, some will not have love for the information and are not interested in marketing to people, just their credit cards. For those it is natural to go the spamming route.

          Some marketers have a mixed attitude. They invest in connecting with people in niches they are interested in, and make machines for the others. They profit from both.

          What I have noticed, is that the marketers who make more money are those who are comfortable in their skin no matter what route they take. If they can own it, they can keep going until making it happen.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7370789].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author fin
            Originally Posted by Sandra Martinez View Post

            I loved the book.

            There is a bit more to the tail, maybe (?).

            Articles for marketing are tools. I would love them to be seen as something more than a means to an end, but this is not the place for it.

            Being a means to an end, the only judge of quality is the bank account (think Hollywood ).

            I feel it is natural for those with love for writing - who work for themselves - to indulge and follow the syndication route. It is far more rewarding than spamming with articles for backlinks. And those people will make far more money using the syndication system than spamming.

            It is also natural for those who are in business and market to people instead of numbers to follow the same route. These are the marketers who hire high ticket writers, because these writers know how to engage their public and create the feeling of intimacy that build relationships. And these marketers make money using this system, it works for THEM.

            On the other hand, some will not have love for the information and are not interested in marketing to people, just their credit cards. For those it is natural to go the spamming route.

            Some marketers have a mixed attitude. They invest in connecting with people in niches they are interested in, and make machines for the others. They profit from both.

            What I have noticed, is that the marketers who make more money are those who are comfortable in their skin no matter what route they take. If they can own it, they can keep going until making it happen.
            How is the view from your pedestal?

            1) Someone spamming crap articles so they can sell a proper book written by someone who has experience in their niche.

            2) Someone using well-written articles to sell a product written by a freelancer who's maybe spent a few days researching the topic before using other people's great information and regurgitating it.

            What would you consider to be the most ethical way to make money?

            I'm not trying to say what you do is in any way wrong, but try not to be condescending to others who are trying to earn a living but can't write as well as you.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7370921].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Sandra Martinez
              Originally Posted by fin View Post

              How is the view from your pedestal?

              1) Someone spamming crap articles so they can sell a proper book written by someone who has experience in their niche.

              2) Someone using well-written articles to sell a product written by a freelancer who's maybe spent a few days researching the topic before using other people's great information and regurgitating it.

              What would you consider to be the most ethical way to make money?

              I'm not trying to say what you do is in any way wrong, but try not to be condescending to others who are trying to earn a living but can't write as well as you.
              you are wrong again about me, but well... I am kind of used to it by now. I am sorry about it though.

              your feelings are your own, I am not being condescending. I can be if I want, that is not what I want.

              I have personal issues with spamming, and I do imprint the text a lot when talking about it. What can I say? I will not apologize for it.

              I do understand why you are so pissed at me though, but will not bring it up here. You will find a way and be alright. More than alright.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7370966].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author fin
                Originally Posted by Sandra Martinez View Post

                you are wrong again about me, but well... I am kind of used to it by now. I am sorry about it though.

                your feelings are your own, I am not being condescending. I can be if I want, that is not what I want.

                I have personal issues with spamming, and I do imprint the text a lot when talking about it. What can I say? I will not apologize for it.

                I do understand why you are so pissed at me though, but will not bring it up here. You will find a way and be alright. More than alright.
                It seems you know me better than I know myself.

                If you have any issues you want to get off your chest I'm more than happy for you to bring them up here.

                I don't think you answered the question. If you only write about subjects you know about then it's certainly not spamming, if that's even what we're going to call it.

                And I'm not pissed at you. How can I be pissed at such a pretty face?
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7370995].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Sandra Martinez
                  Originally Posted by fin View Post

                  It seems you know me better than I know myself.

                  If you have any issues you want to get off your chest I'm more than happy for you to bring them up here.

                  I don't think you answered the question. If you only write about subjects you know about then it's certainly not spamming, if that's even what we're going to call it.

                  And I'm not pissed at you. How can I be pissed at such a pretty face?
                  I have no issues whatsoever. You are the one who seems to be pissed, even when you say you are not.

                  re: spamming. When a person purposely puts out there gazillion copies of the same article, that person is spamming even if it is good quality. Or at least I feel I am spamming when I do it, this is why I don´t do it anymore. And... it is terribly boring. And... the times I did it for general articles, I got a lot of traffic and no conversions.

                  It did work when I was promoting a specific product. For example, bakugan battle arena season 4 The best way to sell this is spamming.... you need to cover spots on first page so all links go to your product. The person is ready to buy and you just give the last push.

                  But this method applied to more general articles, bring traffic but not conversions. There is one article I wrote at the beginning of the article boom era in 2009. It was for a pregnancy site I had. Here is one of the sites that syndicated it (can´t believe it is still there):

                  People & Society: You, Your Newborn, Your Partner And Your Emotional Rollercoaster.

                  this article was used, abused, copied, stolen, you name it. Brought a lot of attention, no conversions. Of course my site was anything but a site designed for high conversions.

                  Now... the user experience.

                  Tell me you don´t feel frustrated when you find exactly the same information - written in the same or different ways - in the first 2 pages of google? I dare you!

                  for the one man/woman orchestra, it is really better to go the syndication route if you can put together good quality content. And I am not talking about something out of this world, just a good arrange of facts organized in a way that is useful, guided by at least one original idea.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7371165].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author fin
                    Originally Posted by Sandra Martinez View Post

                    I have no issues whatsoever. You are the one who seems to be pissed, even when you say you are not.

                    re: spamming. When a person purposely puts out there gazillion copies of the same article, that person is spamming even if it is good quality. Or at least I feel I am spamming when I do it, this is why I don´t do it anymore. And... it is terribly boring. And... the times I did it for general articles, I got a lot of traffic and no conversions.

                    It did work when I was promoting a specific product. For example, bakugan battle arena season 4 The best way to sell this is spamming.... you need to cover spots on first page so all links go to your product. The person is ready to buy and you just give the last push.

                    But this method applied to more general articles, bring traffic but not conversions. There is one article I wrote at the beginning of the article boom era in 2009. It was for a pregnancy site I had. Here is one of the sites that syndicated it (can´t believe it is still there):

                    People & Society: You, Your Newborn, Your Partner And Your Emotional Rollercoaster.

                    this article was used, abused, copied, stolen, you name it. Brought a lot of attention, no conversions. Of course my site was anything but a site designed for high conversions.

                    Now... the user experience.

                    Tell me you don´t feel frustrated when you find exactly the same information - written in the same or different ways - in the first 2 pages of google? I dare you!

                    for the one man/woman orchestra, it is really better to go the syndication route if you can put together good quality content. And I am not talking about something out of this world, just a good arrange of facts organized in a way that is useful, guided by at least one original idea.
                    I don't agree with what you've said in this thread. If you want to say I'm pissed then fair enough, but I don't feel that strongly about it. Especially not to be pissed at you as a person.

                    As for the spamming, I don't read those websites so I wouldn't know. I do understand what you mean though, because sometimes when someone writes a post it starts a chain-reaction of countless articles on the same topic.

                    As for the last part, I don't think it should be painted so black and white. I think people should focus on whatever traffic method works best for their site, but don't let that be the only one you have. I have no idea what method works best for individual sites and it doesn't necessarily have to be SEO/syndication. So I'd still say try everything and see what works.

                    I understand people have their preferred methods and this is where all the trouble seems to start.

                    I'd still like to know why you thought I was pissed at you that wasn't in this thread?
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7371209].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author celente
                      Originally Posted by fin View Post



                      I'd still like to know why you thought I was pissed at you that wasn't in this thread?
                      eeerrrr! Welcome to the warrior forum! Its alot different in here these days. Its more for coming in here and abusing people, shouting, yelling and pissing people off. Get use to it FIN!

                      I miss the old warrior forum.

                      Anyway, still have not seen anyone write about the content of the article. Screw the word amount, I have seen brilliant written 500 worders....and 1000 and 2000 worders leaving you thinking "christ on a cracker, can I paleaaasse get those 10 minutes of my life back"

                      lets face it QUALITY RULES overall. QUALITY matters..... I see heaps of posts in WF with people BRAGGING about how they can write 20 articles a day. YEAH! maybe....in their dreams, but if they can actually do this, those articles would be pretty crappy and I would not want to read them that is for sure.

                      A quality article is as long as it needs to be. I have success with longer articles, but hey doesnt mean too much.....it all comes back to QUALITY as I said....they are well researched or well researched by my outsourcers and it takes a day or so to write them.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7371548].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Sandra Martinez
                        Originally Posted by fin View Post

                        They're only words.
                        All righty then...

                        Originally Posted by fin View Post

                        But I also don't think people smile at the suckers when they're trying to post badly written articles so they can become a success and feed their young family.
                        I didn´t understand this... could you explain it so even I can understand it?


                        Originally Posted by celente View Post

                        eeerrrr! Welcome to the warrior forum! Its alot different in here these days. Its more for coming in here and abusing people, shouting, yelling and pissing people off. Get use to it FIN!

                        I miss the old warrior forum.

                        Anyway, still have not seen anyone write about the content of the article. Screw the word amount, I have seen brilliant written 500 worders....and 1000 and 2000 worders leaving you thinking "christ on a cracker, can I paleaaasse get those 10 minutes of my life back"

                        lets face it QUALITY RULES overall. QUALITY matters..... I see heaps of posts in WF with people BRAGGING about how they can write 20 articles a day. YEAH! maybe....in their dreams, but if they can actually do this, those articles would be pretty crappy and I would not want to read them that is for sure.

                        A quality article is as long as it needs to be. I have success with longer articles, but hey doesnt mean too much.....it all comes back to QUALITY as I said....they are well researched or well researched by my outsourcers and it takes a day or so to write them.
                        I didn´t understand this either... FIN is kind of using me as punching bag (but without being pissed - per his words), for defending quality...

                        Can you explain where this falls in context?

                        BTW, I can´t write 20 articles either.

                        I can write a 20 pages report in a day. But don´t do that anymore... since I got sick I listen to my body more. Don´t want that to happen again. Call it old age.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7371673].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author fin
                          I'm just trying to say that everyone's going to have different opinions about what's good and what's evil.

                          You're saying that people who post badly written content are evil. That's a pretty bold statement to make. What if someone isn't a great writer? Are they not allowed to make a living on the Internet?

                          They are maybe pouring their hearts into what they do and you come along and say they're ruining the net.

                          I was just playing the devil's advocate by explaining to you why others might think what you do is ruining the net.

                          Lots of people on here have strong opinions on automation software like TweetAdder and Scrapebox. People who made them are spammers and the people who use them are just as bad.

                          Then you have people who think they're fine and only use them for legit stuff. Who's wrong?

                          And take PLR. I could turn around to you and say it's promoting spam on the web. You're basically giving someone the right to an article that they can spam the web with. Didn't you mention something about the same thing on every website?

                          Now you turn around to me and say it's fine because people only sell it as research material. Who's wrong in this instance?

                          Everything could be portrayed as evil by someone.

                          What's good to you isn't necessarily good to other people. You can definitely voice your opinion, but then don't be surprised when someone like me comes along and has a different opinion.

                          Everything Ive said in regards to you has been a reply to something you've said in this thread. Now you maybe don't think you're being condescending, but that's what some of your comments have looked like to me. You think I'm pissed at you when I'm just disagreeing with you and putting up arguments to what you said.

                          We all view the world in different ways. Don't be surprised if someone doesn't agree with you in everything you say.
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7371740].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Sandra Martinez
                            Originally Posted by fin View Post

                            I'm just trying to say that everyone's going to have different opinions about what's good and what's evil.

                            You're saying that people who post badly written content are evil. That's a pretty bold statement to make. What if someone isn't a great writer? Are they not allowed to make a living on the Internet?
                            ok, there is only this amount I can (sort of) manage at a time... please tell me where exactly I said that the people who spam are evil...

                            There are people I love dearly who spam if it works for them, I would never say they are evil. I say spam is wrong, sometimes it infuriates me (specially if I am doing research), but I never said it is evil.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7371809].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author fin
                              Originally Posted by Sandra Martinez View Post

                              ok, there is only this amount I can (sort of) manage at a time... please tell me where exactly I said that the people who spam are evil...

                              There are people I love dearly who spam if it works for them, I would never say they are evil. I say spam is wrong, sometimes it infuriates me (specially if I am doing research), but I never said it is evil.
                              OK, I made it up.

                              You said it's natural for people who love writing to go the syndication route and others to go the spamming route.

                              I just have misinterpreted your comment.
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7371837].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
              Originally Posted by fin View Post

              How is the view from your pedestal?

              1) Someone spamming crap articles so they can sell a proper book written by someone who has experience in their niche.

              2) Someone using well-written articles to sell a product written by a freelancer who's maybe spent a few days researching the topic before using other people's great information and regurgitating it.

              What would you consider to be the most ethical way to make money?

              I'm not trying to say what you do is in any way wrong, but try not to be condescending to others who are trying to earn a living but can't write as well as you.
              Ouch Fin!

              That hurt and it wasn't even directed at me.

              Do you have any Snickers Bars handy?

              Terra
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7371175].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author fin
                Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                Ouch Fin!

                That hurt and it wasn't even directed at me.

                Do you have any Snickers Bars handy?

                Terra
                They're only words.

                Everyone has their own level of ethics. You could take some of the most legit people and play with words to make them sound scammy.

                I don't think Sandra sits smiling when she's writing books because suckers are going to buy it from someone who doesn't have years of experience in the field.

                But I also don't think people smile at the suckers when they're trying to post badly written articles so they can become a success and feed their young family.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7371230].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
        Originally Posted by fin View Post

        This is the craziest post I've ever seen written in my entire time on the forum.
        Wow! I'm honored, thank you!


        Originally Posted by fin View Post

        Do you realize that there is hugely successful people making massive amounts of money from every traffic generation method ever invented,
        No I didn't realize that, I'm a complete newbie in marketing.
        Thank you for enlightening me! :rolleyes:



        Originally Posted by fin View Post

        and some that you don't know about.
        It is very true that I do not know everything.
        What can I say, I'm a genius, not a god.



        Originally Posted by fin View Post

        I can mention at least 50 people who are making great money with search engine traffic
        No doubt. I know some of them personally.



        Originally Posted by fin View Post

        - including proof.

        Can you name one person who is making great money with syndicating/guest posting articles - including proof.
        So that we can play the "my proof is bigger than your proof" game?
        No thanks.



        Hmmm... I was going to explain that little comment from my post
        that set you off, but then I realized that it would be a waste of time
        and effort on my part. So instead:


        Further reading.
        Signature

        The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

        ...A tachyon enters a bar.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7372071].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author fin
          Originally Posted by MikeTucker View Post






          So that we can play the "my proof is bigger than your proof" game?
          No thanks.



          Hmmm... I was going to explain that little comment from my post
          that set you off, but then I realized that it would be a waste of time
          and effort on my part. So instead:

          I don't want to see who has the biggest proof. I'm asking if you have any?

          And it certainly wasn't a little comment that set me off. It was your entire post and your complete disregard for every single method under the sun apart from putting your article on another site.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7372105].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
            Originally Posted by fin View Post

            I don't want to see who has the biggest proof. I'm asking if you have any?
            Yes, I have proof. What do you consider "proof"? Screen shots?
            Because I don't buy those, and I'm sure you don't either. Ugh...
            I'm just not going to get entangled in those games anymore.

            Doubt me, sure. A healthy dose of skepticism is certainly healthy.
            Do you really doubt Paul Meyers & myob?

            Or, to paraphrase Allen, "testing is the only guru"
            Test it and have your own evidence


            Originally Posted by fin View Post

            And it certainly wasn't a little comment that set me off. It was your entire post and your complete disregard for every single method under the sun apart from putting your article on another site.

            Hmm... I reread my "entire post" a few times and didn't see
            myself say anything like that? "Complete disregard" for
            every other method? (Nor did I say anything at all about putting
            articles on other sites? But I assume you are considering that
            to be syndication, and I would guess that some people actually
            do that...)

            Alas, it is not the first time I have failed to communicate my point
            in a clear and concise manner, and it probably won't be the last.
            Allow me a chance to clarify?


            The original question in this thread is about whether or not a
            500 word article "out performs" a 1000 word article as EZA
            claims it does.

            Answer: No, it does not, because:
            1. Article syndication is superior to article search engine marketing.
            2. Publishers prefer 1000 word articles, and they get circulated a lot more.

            ...Therefore, 1000 word articles out perform 500 word articles. The End.

            That was my point, all the meat and no potatoes.
            Hope this clears things up a bit.

            ***

            Now, a lot of other people in the thread have gone off and talked
            again and again about how it's quality that is important, not word count.
            I even read one person's comment which said that he didn't see anyone
            talking about it.

            But... That was never the point. It just wasn't. The question was not
            whether a short article could be high quality. Nor was it about whether
            a longer article is read more or not. We all know quality is important,
            this is 2012 and that is kind of a great big "DUH!"


            It was about whether or not a shorter article performs better.

            And the results are in. Time and time again, syndication out-performs
            article directory marketing and article spam marketing. And publishers
            prefer longer articles, usually 1000 words or more.


            ...I just don't know why people are having such a difficult time with
            what seems to me to be a very, very simple concept?
            Signature

            The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

            ...A tachyon enters a bar.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7372689].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Sandra Martinez
              Originally Posted by MikeTucker View Post


              ...I just don't know why people are having such a difficult time with
              what seems to me to be a very, very simple concept?
              Can I get a lil bit bitchy here? Just between you and me...

              It is because there is a big business created around the mass production of crappy short articles.

              Good luck trying to find someone able to create a 1000 words article designed for syndication working for 1 buck each 100 words...
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7373251].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author fin
              Originally Posted by MikeTucker View Post

              Do you really doubt Paul Meyers & myob?


              Article syndication is superior to article search engine marketing.
              Does Paul M syndicate his articles? I've never seen him mention it before. And Paul U said he makes 1/2 billion per year. It was maybe a joke that got out of hand, but it's hard not to doubt. Surely you have a random example from someone not on the WF?

              And saying syndication is superior to SEO is strange. I know it's just your opinion, but the way you say it makes it sound so absolute.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7373466].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
            Banned
            Originally Posted by fin View Post

            I don't want to see who has the biggest proof. I'm asking if you have any?
            To be fair, Jamie, you really do make a great and repeated habit here of challenging for income proof people who praise article syndication, and nobody else - and of casting public aspersions about their veracity.

            If you genuinely believe that all the people here, over the last 2 - 3 years, who'd previously been struggling mostly with SEO-based approaches to traffic generation but have started becoming successful through article syndication are confabulating, exaggerating or generally "making it up", that's one thing ... but when you introduce and so consistently maintain such an apparently personal and challenging tone in your posts here, I suspect that sometimes you really don't quite appreciate how you come across.

            I've kept out of this part of the discussion almost entirely, and am not "trying to ease my way into it" here, but it's very noticeable (and not only to me) that you have a real bee in your bonnet about trying to detract from article syndication at every opportunity you can contrive. Quite why it's such a sensitive issue to you I've never understood, even when corresponding privately with you about it.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7373506].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author fin
              Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

              To be fair, Jamie, you really do make a great and repeated habit here of challenging for income proof people who praise article syndication, and nobody else - and of casting public aspersions about their veracity.

              If you genuinely believe that all the people here, over the last 2 - 3 years, who'd previously been struggling mostly with SEO-based approaches to traffic generation but have started becoming successful through article syndication are confabulating, exaggerating or generally "making it up", that's one thing ... but when you introduce such an apparently personal and challenging tone in your posts here, I suspect that sometimes you really don't quite appreciate how you come across.

              I've kept out of this part of the discussion almost entirely, and am not "trying to ease my way into it" here, but it's very noticeable (and not only to me) that you have a real bee in your bonnet about trying to detract from article syndication at every opportunity you can contrive. Quite why it's such a sensitive issue to you I've never understood, even when corresponding privately with you about it.
              I spent 5 years in the military. When you're inside you don't have an opinion. You get told what to do and you do it, even if it's wrong. You accept it, or you get charged/go to jail.

              Then I come on here and notice in nearly every thread people are throwing syndication down everyone's throat with no apparent proof.

              It's the exact same thing. Sit down, shut up and just accept it without saying anything.

              I don't have a personal issue with syndication or any individual person. I have an issue with the entire 'sit down and shut up' attitude.

              I've told you before that income claims don't mean anything to me. I just want people to stop promoting stuff that people don't have any comeback against, unless they have proof in which case I'll crawl back under my rock.

              But if I see something in a thread that I don't agree with I feel it's right to question it. People do it with me and I certainly don't just do it with syndication.

              EDIT: Sorry, that second-last part was wrong. I obviously have no problem with people promoting any method (including syndication) without proof. Just not when they say every other method pales in comparison and is rubbish, but can't prove their method.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7373585].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author denysapu
    I just always ignore people offering 500words free review article.
    In many cases, I knew that my targeted readers are needs detailed article, and most of it will more than 500words
    Signature

    Don't worry be happy!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7367647].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Benjamin Ehinger
    Originally Posted by yourreviewer View Post

    I just stumbled upon an article syndication pdf in Ezinearticles in which they state the following,

    Be Clear & Concise in Your Writing: A 500 word article will always outperform a 1000 word article. You are writing for a medium that embraces instant gratification: the Internet. Keep your articles clear and concise, so the reader can quickly comprehend the quality content you are sharing.

    You can find the source in the link below.

    http://media.ezinearticles.com/pdf/e...arketing-2.pdf

    Is it just me who finds that statement ridiculous and utterly false?
    Nope it's not just you. What's funny about this is Ezine Articles gives more exposure to longer articles than they do shorter ones. They won't even accept 500 word articles in some categories anymore.

    I find that longer articles (assuming they are high quality and usable content) end up in more places than shorter articles. It's possible to write a GREAT 500 word article, but most subjects need at least 800 words for thorough explanation.

    You can write 1,000 words and still hit the instant gratification note perfectly. It's all in the formatting and making the article easy to read.

    Benjamin Ehinger
    Signature

    Follow My Journey & Discover How to Become More Productive, Manage Time Better & Make More Money at: www.BenjaminEhinger.com

    Don't Forget to Like & Follow me on Facebook Here

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7368283].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author OmarNegron
    That is indeed true since a lot of the long articles tend to have fillers. Of course some long articles are great but if you can be informative and creative within 500 words people will truly read the whole article instead of getting bored and not finishing the 1000 word one.

    Thanks for the post!

    -Will
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7369231].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TimK06
    When it comes to me reading an article it totally depends on the Author. Now if you're an Author that loves to write and provide valuable content in your writing it shows and you won't care how long it is because you'll be hanging on every word but for authors who are just doing it for traffic and I feel like you're bored writing it then it's likely the reader will be bored reading it and lose interests all together

    Kind regards
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7370195].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author fin
      And BTW, the successful people, IMO, don't do SEO or content marketing.

      SEO - Work for a living building links, or pay for it. Next algo change and your world comes crashing down.

      Syndication - Work for a living, write articles and syndicate them.

      It doesn't really matter how long your content is, as long as it's great, if you:

      Pay for traffic
      Have great content so people send traffic to you
      Use sneaky ways to get traffic without much work

      All these ways of making money while not doing much work seem a lot better than SEO and syndication.

      The people out there doing these things would laugh at us for arguing about whether an extra 500 words is better or not.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7370312].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Rod Cortez
        Originally Posted by fin View Post

        And BTW, the successful people, IMO, don't do SEO or content marketing.
        Now that's hilarious.

        SEO - Work for a living building links, or pay for it. Next algo change and your world comes crashing down.
        What you just described is building links, not SEO; at the very least a very small part of what some people call SEO.

        Syndication - Work for a living, write articles and syndicate them.
        Some people love to write and many other marketers outsource their syndication efforts.

        It doesn't really matter how long your content is, as long as it's great, if you:

        Pay for traffic
        Have great content so people send traffic to you
        Use sneaky ways to get traffic without much work

        All these ways of making money while not doing much work seem a lot better than SEO and syndication.

        The people out there doing these things would laugh at us for arguing about whether an extra 500 words is better or not.
        Totally agree with your last sentence there. They ARE laughing.

        RoD
        Signature
        "Your personal philosophy is the greatest determining factor in how your life works out."
        - Jim Rohn
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7370349].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author fin
          Originally Posted by Rod Cortez View Post

          Now that's hilarious.

          What you just described is building links, not SEO; at the very least a very small part of what some people call SEO.

          Some people love to write and many other marketers outsource their syndication efforts.

          Totally agree with your last sentence there. They ARE laughing.

          RoD
          Thanks for your detailed response, Rod.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7370415].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author espowsong
    I wouldn't actually mind if it was more than filler content.If you can get your point across in 300 words then great, if you need 1000 words then that's great too.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7371772].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Gram
    It's completely and utterly ridiculous for sure. It's not about the # of words, it's all about the content and quality of those words.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7371789].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ronaldosurfseo
    Ezinearticles has failed more than once in their quest for being a better article network. This is just an example of how strict they are becoming and this is definitely wrong.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7371817].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Bruce99
    I read a doc on google analysis by an authority this year that said that high ranking sites across many countries and many servers seemed on average to have homepages of around 450 words. It could be a coincidence, but then why do most home pages need to have 1000 words. you can always use a testimonial page or a read more button.

    I also find that it is difficult to have any meaningful keyword density (heaven forbid in 2012) when you have thousands of words. If you are trying to get your point across, and sell people something, 500 words seems about right ...

    but I am sure that Matt knows best.
    Signature

    just a dog guy.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7372822].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author davidfrankk
    I agree with the clear and concise bit but I don't believe that a 500 word article will always out perform one with a 1000 words.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7373563].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ricoramiro
    Forget about reading! I much rather prefer to write a 500 word article than a 1,000.

    You can get a lot of information in 500 words or less so don't try to push the limits. If you do have an article that's more than 500 words you could break it up into a couple of posts and viola! You got 2 articles instead of one.
    Signature
    Women's Gold Necklaces at 60% Discounts>> https://jewelry-necklace.kitsylane.com/
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7373615].message }}

Trending Topics