Site Blog vs Site Articles... advantages of each?

[austtr]

When it comes to SEO best practices, it's quite common for expert comment/opinion (and I'm including Matt Cutts here) to refer to the importance of the site's blog. When I see the word "blog" I understand it to mean a part of the site created by an application such as WordPress, Blogger, Tumblr etc.

I find most blogs to have lightweight, fluffy entries that don't really enrich my viewing experience. I've never been convinced that my site subject matter gains anything from tacking on a blog. My preference has always been to expand the unique information on the site. That may involve adding content on an existing page or adding new pages. It might also involve adding article pages about topics related to the site's subject matter. e.g.

"A Visitors Guide To The Widget Valley" would be a page of content.
"Recommended Day Trips To The Widget Valley" would be an article page, possibly authored by a third party.
"Best Family Camp Sites In The Widget Valley" would be an article page, possibly authored by a subject expert.

However, this approach is essentially expanding evergreen content that seldom, if ever, varies or requires updates. Blogs on the other hand are supposed to be the platform for adding fresh content and keeping the site current.

In the above scenario it's easy to see that the two article pages could also be blog entries.

Question: From a purely SEO and ranking perspective, do you think it's possible that having a genuine blog provides any advantage over an arrangement of article pages?

[Rasputin]

Our travel site had a 'fluff blog' until quite recently for the reason you describe. Deleting it because it was not the best way to present information had no impact whatsoever on the site ranking as a whole (we prefer as you describe to add or improve new content in a way that better fits with the overall site architecture).

I think the main reason to have a blog is if it genuinely adds value such that people return to the site to read the latest blog entry where they might not return to try and track down the most recently updated content page.

The benefit of using something like wordpress is that it makes it easier for people to subscribe to updates, and be reminded when a new entry is added, which should lead to likes and tweets etc. I don't think wordpres, blogger etc are intrinsically better for SEO or rankings than any other platform that is updated frequently.

If I had a site about, say, 'seo updates' or 'new game consoles', that people like to stay updated with I would use a blog.

[EditorialGuy]

What works best editorially, for you and your users? That's a better way to approach the question than relying on other people's guesses about the SEO value of articles vs. blogs. (After all, guesses are just guesses, and Google's ranking algorithm is a moving target.)

One disadvantage of a blog is that you'll need to update it often enough to keep the blog from looking stale or dead. And if your new content is mostly evergreen, the standard LIFO ("last in, first out") blog format won't offer you any advantages from a structural point of view.

[vandelayweb]

Its really just semantics. An article is a blog post and a blog post is an article. Platforms usually associated with blogging like Wordpress just help you stay organized and include extreme ease of use. They add categories and tagging, but the only thing really making it a blog is you slapping that label on it.

Now if the question is more about writing timely articles vs more evergreen content that depends on your readers. If you are breaking news they find valuable (even if its the neighborhood pool opening), then a blog format makes a lot of sense. If you are more interested in creating content that adds value to the web for years to come and becomes a linkable asset in its own right, a well researched piece of evergreen content is the way to go. It really depends on your goals and your audience.