PDA

View Full Version : Amount of Content Per Page



phanio
01-20-2010, 02:52 PM
I have been doing some reading on SEO techniques. I have found a lot of information – some good, a lot bad.

Recently, I saw on several sites that the content of a page should not be more than 2 to 3 paragraphs. Anything more should be transferred to another page.

How accurate is this. I also looked at sites like Wikipedia or WebMD – which have tons of content on a sign page.

While I want to ensure that I am doing the most regarding SEO – I also don’t want to have a site that is just too big and unmanageable.

Spider
01-20-2010, 05:31 PM
I think a page size depends on the subject, for a start - an entertainment page might be shorter than more serious content, I feel. And also, dependent on the speed of downloading - a heavy graphic page needs to be shorter to not take too long loading.

For my website pages, I generally aim at 4 or 5 screens. If 2 screens make up a normal 8½ x 11 page, I think 2 "paper" pages is about right.

Another way I look at it is try to not go over 20k. This is the code and does not include the size of any images, but my images are usually few and small.

Another measure on this theme, I do not like to carry the message over to another page, unless it is clear that the content is a long and meaningful article or "lesson." I will trim the wording to shorten the mesage to keep it on a single web-page. I believe web-visitors are not the most patient people in the world and don't want to click to the next page any more than they want to scroll down.

vangogh
01-20-2010, 06:36 PM
How long your content should be depends on the content. Your content should use exactly the number of words it takes to say what you want to say, the way you want to say.

Completely ignore any seo advice that tells you your content needs to be a certain length. The advice you're seeing is based on the idea that more pages leads to more chances to rank. Technically that's true, but those pages will also be competing against each other for the same phrases and more importantly breaking up an article into several pages leads to unhappy readers.

I can only speak for myself, but it annoys me to no end to have to click through to read an article when it could easily have been placed on a single page. Not to mention that if I found page 3 of your 5 page article in a search engine I won't be reading those words in context and again will leave.

Don't try to micromanage seo. Many of those little tips like not making a page more than 2 - 3 paragraphs are generally worthless and often wrong.

1st rule of seo: make sure your site works for the real people who visit before anything else.

Spider
01-20-2010, 07:45 PM
Interesting. So, are you saying, VG, that you would prefer a single webpage article instead of a 4 webpage article, where the single page would be 16 "folds" long and 70k in size? 'Cos I have a 4 page section on my website about Prospecting which would, if compiled into a single page, be that long and that big.

I'm not thinking SEO so much as use. I'd be more inclined to read a 4-page article than even start reading one that is as long as the typical "spammy" sales page. Is that unusual? Would most web-visitors be inclined to read a single long page than several shorter ones?

And that doesn't take into account the longer download time and loss of recognition by Google for having a slow-loading page.

billbenson
01-20-2010, 07:51 PM
From a visitor perspective, clicking to the next page to view more of the same subject, such as a tutorial is a pain. However, if it is lesson 1, lesson 2, etc. it may make sense.

If you have an image heavy page, it may make sense for load times.

From a SEO perspective, you don't want an image only page. Try to get some text on a page. You should try to get some text on there for the search engines. 300 to 500 words seems to be a common objective per blog post or page. Google seems to be putting more emphesis on original content.

I'm not contradicting what others have said above. I'm only saying that if it fits in with the site, try to get some good text on there. I don't think there is an upper limit on the amount of text.

vangogh
01-20-2010, 11:21 PM
Frederick it depends on the length of the article. There are times I take an idea for a post and turn it into a series of posts. Each post is pretty long on it's own and taken together it would be one extremely long post.

It's more that I wouldn't take a single article and arbitrarily break it into a series of short pages. It's annoying to read a couple of paragraphs and then have to click to the next page for 2 more paragraphs.

The situation you're describing on your site sounds like a good call to make separate pages. If an article is too long then it could seem overwhelming and it does make sense to have it span multiple pages.

My objection is only when a single article of reasonable length is turned into several pages for no reason other than to have more pages.

Spider
01-21-2010, 12:01 AM
Ok. We're together, then.

Although, I have seen page sizes of a single screen (1280 x 1024, say) ie. no vertical scrolling, linking to the rest of the article on a 'next page.' And it seemed to work, because the font was quite small, there were few images, and a lot of information was contained on that 'no-scroll' page.

I prefer a larger font (for over-40-year-olds with deteriorating eyesight), which leads me to prefer at least a one or two scrolled page.

Harold Mansfield
01-21-2010, 01:28 AM
I think it's more important to worry about how well your content is organized rather than how long it is.
There is no reason to ramble in an article. Most people want to get the point and make the case.
For every article that says each article should be 500 words long, there is another that say's only the first 150 words matter.

Write for your readers first and Google second...and after while you'll be doing both simultaneously.
I stopped worrying about article length a long time ago..right around the time I stopped looking at the Page Rank bar.
I just put up the content that needs to be posted, throw a few links at it and move on. I don't nit pick trying to come up with the right equation anymore like I used to and I haven't seen any drops in traffic. If you think of the readers first and people find your information interesting, helpful or entertaining...you will pick up links naturally which is worth a lot more than having the "right" number of words in each post.

Write for the links.

vangogh
01-21-2010, 11:13 AM
Write for your readers first and Google second...and after while you'll be doing both simultaneously.

Yep. That's what I've been trying to say. Ultimately it's real people that you're content is meant for so write for those people and skip the little tricks you think might help you with a search engine.


Ok. We're together, then.

I think so too. I'm not at all opposed to breaking up a long article into several pages, but it should be done for a better reason than just having extra pages for a search engine.

KristineS
01-21-2010, 12:38 PM
The copy should be as long as it needs to be. If you can say what you need to say in a couple of paragraphs, than don't ramble. If it needs to be longer, break the copy up.

SEO should be a consideration, but it should come after readability, not before.

Spider
01-21-2010, 02:13 PM
The reason I think page length is important is something I learned at Toastmasters - where most speeches are 5 - 7 minutes. It takes a lot of work to say what you want to say in 5-7 minutes. Just as it is hard work to write briefly and succinctly. By chipping it down to fewer and fewer words and more precise words to say the same thing, you reach the reader faster and deeper. We have a tendency to not reduce the words unless we have a some self-imposed limitation on the length.

billbenson
01-21-2010, 04:18 PM
I was just on a page on Yahoo and they were breaking up a news article into three pages. The apparent logic was to get more ads in front of the customer.

Dan Furman
01-21-2010, 04:32 PM
The copy should be as long as it needs to be. If you can say what you need to say in a couple of paragraphs, than don't ramble. If it needs to be longer, break the copy up.

SEO should be a consideration, but it should come after readability, not before.

I was going to say the exact thing - a web page should be as long as it needs to be.

How long is that? It varies from site to site. Generally, I like to say the shorter, the better - people generally don't like to see that little scroll bar get really tiny. But then again, the "long sales letter" does work for many instances.

So... how does one know how long it needs to be for their situation? I dunno... test conversion? Or hire someone. (heck, even I don't know how long a page generally needs to be until I start writing.)

Harold Mansfield
01-22-2010, 07:14 PM
The reason I think page length is important is something I learned at Toastmasters - where most speeches are 5 - 7 minutes. It takes a lot of work to say what you want to say in 5-7 minutes. Just as it is hard work to write briefly and succinctly. By chipping it down to fewer and fewer words and more precise words to say the same thing, you reach the reader faster and deeper. We have a tendency to not reduce the words unless we have a some self-imposed limitation on the length.

That may be a good rule of thumb for speeches, but online you aren't asking people to listen...you are asking them to read....a whole 'nother ball of wax.

People hate reading online...they skim, unless something really grabs their attention or they have found specifically what they are looking for.
Let me rephrase that....your regulars will read what you have to say because you have engaged them well enough previously to get them to come back. But new visitors, are skimmers.

The same rules that go for holding people's attention long enough to listen, don't apply to getting people to read.

Spider
01-22-2010, 08:54 PM
Ooh! So many comments to make - so little time!!! :D


That may be a good rule of thumb for speeches, but online you aren't asking people to listen...you are asking them to read....a whole 'nother ball of wax...But it's not another ball of wax - it's the same ball of wax - peoples' attention span. I think you are right - it is a good rule for speeches, therefore it is a good rule for writing. Just as taking too long to say something is annoying, taking too long to read something is equally annoying.


...People hate reading online...they skim,...They do, indeed. So you'd better grab them quick. And if you can say in 5 words what someone else says in 7 words, you win!


... unless something really grabs their attention...Correct, again! Getting your complete idea across in one short sentence will grab them, while taking two or three sentences will lose them.


...or they have found specifically what they are looking for...Showing them that they have found what they are looking for by getting it to them faster will keep them. If the subject being written about contains five or six ideas, only one of which satisfies your visitor, exposing those five or six ideas in five or six bullet points rather than five or six paragraphs, will keep them - otherwise, they could be gone before they get to the end.


...Let me rephrase that....your regulars will read what you have to say ...Take too long to say anything, or force them read too long because you can't write briefly and succinctly, and you won't have many regulars!


...because you have engaged them...Taking too long, whether in speech or in writing is a cause for them to disengage.


... well enough previously to get them to come back...But, as you say, they won't come back if they couldn't find what they want, (a) if you didn't get to the point fast enough or (c) you buried what they wanted in too many words.


... But new visitors, are skimmers...Indeed, they are! Which makes it all the more necessary to deliver your information in the fewest words possible.


...The same rules that go for holding people's attention long enough to listen, don't apply to getting people to read.I hope I have proven that they do.


Have you ever wondered why quotable words are quoted? Because they capture much in a little space. Because they condense a really meaningful idea in very few words.

Dan Furman
01-22-2010, 10:11 PM
Taking too long, whether in speech or in writing is a cause for them to disengage.

This is not necessarily true. If it were, long sales pages would never work. Or forget the salesletter page - even a 600 word page is considered pretty long - but I routinely get comments on some little joke I inserted on the bottom of a page deep in my site.

Not engaging your reader is the kiss of death. Whether it's short or long. Your reader has to enjoy reading, or they won't.

Spider
01-23-2010, 10:03 AM
I agree, Dan. The content must be interesting. I am not pitting interest against length.

The point I am trying to make is that length alone can be a turn off. Maybe copy can be so interesting as to overcome length distraction, but that does not deny that too long is distracting.

If you can be interesting, can be fluid and captivating, and can get your point across in 200 words, I believe that will give you better results than the same fluidity, the same interest and the same message, in 300 words.

Dan Furman
01-24-2010, 05:43 PM
I agree, Dan. The content must be interesting. I am not pitting interest against length.

The point I am trying to make is that length alone can be a turn off. Maybe copy can be so interesting as to overcome length distraction, but that does not deny that too long is distracting.

If you can be interesting, can be fluid and captivating, and can get your point across in 200 words, I believe that will give you better results than the same fluidity, the same interest and the same message, in 300 words.

Yes, on that I do agree - when the teacher assigns a book to read in ninth grade, I was a lot happier with a short, 200-page book than "A Tale of Two Cities" or "Moby Dick". Just the length alone turned me off.

Same with a webpage - for the most part, I'd rather see that scrollbar stay big.

vangogh
01-25-2010, 11:46 AM
I think there will always be some people who will automatically skip reading anything over a certain length, but I've never bought into the idea that shorter is necessarily better all other things being equal.

Sometimes when I read a short article I'm left disappointed because it said so little. To me this is really about quality. If your content is good I don't think it makes a difference what length it is. If it's good and if you've shown your content is good in the past people will read it. Maybe they won't have time to read it the moment they find it, but if it looks like something they want they will read.

People will scan first to help them make the decision to read in full or not. That's what it's important to have a good title and page headings and why it's important to have an interesting opening paragraph.

I think the whole idea of debating an ideal length for content gets silly. Write what you have to say as best as you can say it. If it's 200 words, great. If it's 2,000 words, that's great too. As long as the content is good and worth reading there's an audience for it.

Harold Mansfield
01-26-2010, 11:56 AM
Ironically, on my music blog, my most read article of all time is also the longest I have ever written.
It's also the one that picked up the most links.
I just had something to say that day, but if I were to make every post that long, or try and recreate that post, I am sure I would begin to turn off readers.

It was as long as it needed to be that day.

vangogh
01-26-2010, 12:18 PM
One thing that can happen with longer posts is people are likely to think more work went into the post and because of that, think the post likely better and perhaps more accurate than a shorter post. I'm not saying longer posts are necessarily better, but I think they add to the impression that the post might be better.

When you encounter a long book that's very dense and maybe has one paragraph per page, you may not read it because it seems like too much work on your part. That extra work can often make you think the book is likely an important one, because it requires so much work on your part.

Longer posts do tend to get more links and bookmarks. Your typical linkbait post is usually longer than the typical non-linkbait post.

billbenson
01-27-2010, 04:02 PM
For me, when I see a long post that looks like it interests me, I tend to bookmark it to read later. Frequently later never comes. In fact if VG or someone posts here a link to a blog post he likes and a summary, I'm likely to read his summary and only scan the actual post.

vangogh
01-28-2010, 12:03 PM
We all do that. I often bookmark posts that I know I won't ready for awhile, but I'm bookmarking them so I can tag them to find them later. I may for example have a dozen posts bookmarked right now about some particular feature in WordPress. I don't need to read any of them now, but at some point I'll be working on that feature. I'll quickly find what I've bookmarked and spend an hour or two learn something new that enables me to continue with what I was working on.

As a site owner maybe that post didn't get read, but if enough people bookmark it then it likely is helping drive more traffic to your site.