Word count doesn't matter as much as user satisfaction to Google

[goodroi]

I just wrapped up another site review and the best performing pages are averaging about 300-400 words which is not alarming to me. This isn't the first time I have found this type of situation. Why do these light content pages perform so well? Because they satisfy users. For example imagine an online calculator page. Those pages don't usually have 800 or 1000 words per page. They tend to have a few hundred words and a functioning calculator and perform well.

I've actually come across sites that got penalized for boosting their word counts. In one situation they were blindly trying to make sure every page had at least 1000 words and that lead to ugly keyword stuffing, horrible usability and a total nightmare to their rankings. After we reworked the content to make it appropriate for human users, the pages rebounded.

I am not advocating people chase after short content but rather that we use common sense when trying to figure out how much content is the right amount. Using common sense, if you are writing a webpage on a complicated topic, it probably will need a big amount of content (you might even want to split it up between a few pages).

So what do you think? Why do you agree or disagree with me? What has been your experience?

[satchmo]

It's a sad state of affairs if people can't digest 20 screens. Everything in the world can't be dumbed down and explained in bulleted snippets.

[EditorialGuy]

It's a sad state of affairs if people can't digest 20 screens. Everything in the world can't be dumbed down and explained in bulleted snippets.

"Dumbing down" isn't the issue. The problem is keeping track of where you (the reader) are when you're scrolling through 20 screens. It's a usability issue. (In an earlier post, I referenced a Stanford academic study about scrolling vs. pagination. It would be interesting to see that study redone in today's Web environment.)

[brotherhood of LAN]

It's a sad state of affairs if people can't digest 20 screens. Everything in the world can't be dumbed down and explained in bulleted snippets.

It does also depend on query intent though, surely. There are a lot of queries that can be answered by Google without a click through, and others where their organic results and a paragraph or two can resolve the question.

Other times a user might be gathering a consensus on a new topic and longer documents are palatable. Some questions do not have a quick answer.

I know myself that some queries I do are a bit digestive, where I'm digging around and sometimes not even knowing the specific question I want to ask, where longer documents provide a context to the question. Being the organic result might not be the best conversion opportunity for these situations, mind you.

[tangor]

The content will tell you how long it must be. A novel (or movie, or record album) is THAT long. It can be divided, of course, but that's where the editor comes in for that decision. Cut/break any of the above in the wrong place and user satisfaction is guaranteed to be negative.

That said, there's another activity going on that is part of the equation when the publisher (and revenue) is involved. There has to be a balance. Some web sites aren't just question/answer. They are entertainment, information, or evergreen for something greater than 2+2=4. Quite a few sites are ecommerce and few of those can claim to be question/answer destinations among a frenzied crowd of similar destinations.

If you really want g love you got to look at it from their side (money), if the short answer will do to paste their ad(s), that's the one to use---most of the time.

If the site/info is UNIQUE you will get all the love you can stand---until some copycat steals your thunder (times a factor of 100). To remain unique have deep pockets and a company of lawyers on hand.

I break articles where it makes sense to do so. Most of the time I keep it all on one page with inter-page nav to get through the longer ones. As for a 20 page scroll .... which 20 pages ... there's so many different devices out there. Coding for a phone makes a laptop/desktop sometimes look very thin.

Just some thoughts.

[Broaster]

I personally hate reading articles that are too long, I prefer 300 to 400 words as long as they inform me of what im searching for.

[satchmo]

Unfortunately, I cannot explain how to rebuild a car engine in 1000 words or less....

[Leosghost]

I personally hate reading articles that are too long, I prefer 300 to 400 words as long as they inform me of what im searching for.

Each to their own..
Personally I much prefer long in depth articles (as long as they are not merely "padding" or "purple prose" ) . But then I read fast, and retain everything I read..and I do not use, nor visit twitter..as a reader, as a writer, as a creator, or as a seller.. the "illiterati" is not a market that interests me..

as long as they inform me of what im searching for.

Surely you know what you are searching for ?

[Broaster]

leosghost

I search for simple things, like news updates, weather, news, sports scores, recipes, Ill visit ESPN and read the articles there most of them are just 400 words etc.

If I want to read a long story on something Ill read it but most of what Im searching for is just updates I like to skim through.

I usually just read articles from a magazine when im on the toilet.

[tangor]

Users seek out the content they want.

Publishers publish the content they publish.

Sometimes the content runs to 125,000 words OR MORE. (Think Project Gutenberg for example).

Not all content is long. Not all content is short. Not all users seek "updates or blurbs". Not all blurb seekers are adverse to long form content (novels, etc)

The real question is (as op stated) what content form is G happy with?

I don't code for g. I code for my users (which means I don't pad out a thin page chasing an antiquated SEO "spec" that 1000 words is the sweet spot).

Your content is exactly as long as it needs to be to deliver IN FULL to the user. Pagination is an editorial decision and should not be subject to some mysterious g myth of seo. USER satisfaction is the mark. Aim for that!

[lucy24]

Surely you know what you are searching for?

If you know for a fact that the person you’re responding to is a native speaker of English, that’s pretty funny. If you don’t, it is--ahem!--Not Nice.

[Neveragain646]

The amounts of words do matter, of you have pages of more than 2000 words, you get bonuspoints. But what's becoming more important is: use of pictures/bulletpoints, dwell time, click through, coming back to the same pages from same user. These are becoming more important for google, because it tells google more than links, which can be manipulated. It doesn't mean that links are becoming useless, but it depends on the kind of link. If these are links within articles about the product on other pages, you'll get points. If these are links placed on other pages that have nothing to do with your product or have no text, they're basically useless. So even with links, content becomes more important and the same metrics are calculated on these linkpages: click through to your site, dwelltime etc., and of course PA and DA.

[EditorialGuy]

Unfortunately, I cannot explain how to rebuild a car engine in 1000 words or less....

You could try the "Ikea instructions" approach. If a picture is worth a thousand words, a thousand pictures would be an encyclopedia!

[JS_Harris]

I find the same as you goodroi but still recommend people create comprehensive pages. I have a few pages with less than 100 words which do extremely well but they contain a tool people use quite a bit. I do see a correlation between having more text that covers more of a subject receiving traffic for more different keywords. You can do quite well with a highly trafficked keyword and few others or do well with a wide range of little trafficked keywords.