Optimal content length for SEO

[WagerX]

I read a study today that was interesting.
https://moz.com/blog/content-shares-...llion-articles

It looked at a million different posts. Examined the shares, external links (links back to the post), and content length.
Intuitively, we know that our posts will more likely get more shares than links. There is no correlation between the shares and links. Becuase you have more shares, doesn't mean you will get more links. The formats of the posts, videos and quite got more shares, but not more links.

Now, content length. They confirmed what we already know. Longer is better The sweet spot is about 1500 words. That was my takeaway.

Can anyone else confirm your experience on content length?

[hcgroup]

Actually, although longer is better approach has been confirmed many times by many experts, I still believe in content richness and usefulness and interactivity with the readers (comments)... I believe that a minimum of 500 words article which adds value to the reader will still rank well.

Also; Adding video, pictures, diagrams, infographics, PDFs, rich text (bold, underline, italic, quotes) and last but not the least; inner links to the related pages/posts on the same site and outgoing links to authoritative sites are highly important.

I read a study today that was interesting.
https://moz.com/blog/content-shares-...llion-articles

It looked at a million different posts. Examined the shares, external links (links back to the post), and content length.
Intuitively, we know that our posts will more likely get more shares than links. There is no correlation between the shares and links. Becuase you have more shares, doesn't mean you will get more links. The formats of the posts, videos and quite got more shares, but not more links.

Now, content length. They confirmed what we already know. Longer is better The sweet spot is about 1500 words. That was my takeaway.

Can anyone else confirm your experience on content length?

[stillshadow]

Here's another one from Ahrefs with a ton of metrics.

It's largely going to depend on the competitiveness of the keyword and perhaps how broad of a concept the search is for. For example, I think Google would expect a bigger word count for "online casinos" than "online casinos that opened in 2017 on a Tuesday".

I personally love mega pages and theoretically you should rank for a lot more keywords, but in our competitive industry I haven't seen a lot of evidence that extremely long excellent pages rank better simply because they're longer and better. And that's unfortunate.

[mickyfu]

Longer is better is just a myth with no basis at all. Don't believe me? Just take a look at the actual search results. Natural is best. No need to make a 1500 word article on something that can be summed up in 400 words, because it simply looks unnatural and keyword stuffed.

[WagerX]

Here's another one from Ahrefs with a ton of metrics.

It's largely going to depend on the competitiveness of the keyword and perhaps how broad of a concept the search is for. For example, I think Google would expect a bigger word count for "online casinos" than "online casinos that opened in 2017 on a Tuesday"....

Great input. Thanks for sharing. On your above statement, I think it would be fair to compare two equally competitive keyword phrases. I think that if there were equal, an article with more relevant content would prevail. In the above example, there is one that is long tail that probably doesn't need as much due to the competitiveness. In this example, if everyone was trying to rank for "online casinos that opened in 2017" then more quantity most likely will prevail.

[WagerX]

Longer is better is just a myth with no basis at all.

<< INSERT THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID JOKE HERE>> . lol

...Just take a look at the actual search results. Natural is best. No need to make a 1500 word article on something that can be summed up in 400 words, because it simply looks unnatural and keyword stuffed.

No doubt quality is key. You were right about that. The Fluffy word filled SEO articles are not going to get you high in the search engines. I agree with you. I was trying to use the cited studies with the idea that all other things are equal. With assuming quality is the same, and results compared to the other.

[mickyfu]

<< INSERT THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID JOKE HERE>> . lol



No doubt quality is key. You were right about that. The Fluffy word filled SEO articles are not going to get you high in the search engines. I agree with you. I was trying to use the cited studies with the idea that all other things are equal. With assuming quality is the same, and results compared to the other.

I don't personally fall for all these "studies" that are conducted by "SEO Experts" from places like MOZ. Hasn't someone always studied millions of sites, just so they can make some blog fluff article with no real basis.

I prefer to go off what I see with my own eyes an from my own experiences, and I have to say, most sites I cone across ranking (in the gambling niche) the articles tend to be in the 400 - 600 word range.

Personally I just like to mix things up with a wide range of article lengths.

[hcgroup]

I agree with you but what if both long and top-quality and useful will be published?

Longer is better is just a myth with no basis at all. Don't believe me? Just take a look at the actual search results. Natural is best. No need to make a 1500 word article on something that can be summed up in 400 words, because it simply looks unnatural and keyword stuffed.

[hcgroup]

I agree with you. And one key thing should be considered on those high-ranking sites is that: Proper inner and outer linking have been established in those articles! Also rich media and vide etc.

I don't personally fall for all these "studies" that are conducted by "SEO Experts" from places like MOZ. Hasn't someone always studied millions of sites, just so they can make some blog fluff article with no real basis.

I prefer to go off what I see with my own eyes an from my own experiences, and I have to say, most sites I cone across ranking (in the gambling niche) the articles tend to be in the 400 - 600 word range.

Personally I just like to mix things up with a wide range of article lengths.

[hcgroup]

Also, one more thing which was experienced by me is that you are always carrying the "keyword stuffing" penalty if you try to write more. So "Be natural!" if the content is being written comfortably long without spending many hours to add many synonyms and same definitions recurring each paragraph, your content will be ranked well (even if it would be a 400 words content)

I read a study today that was interesting.
https://moz.com/blog/content-shares-...llion-articles

It looked at a million different posts. Examined the shares, external links (links back to the post), and content length.
Intuitively, we know that our posts will more likely get more shares than links. There is no correlation between the shares and links. Becuase you have more shares, doesn't mean you will get more links. The formats of the posts, videos and quite got more shares, but not more links.

Now, content length. They confirmed what we already know. Longer is better The sweet spot is about 1500 words. That was my takeaway.

Can anyone else confirm your experience on content length?

[JS128]

This is the approach we're taking with our gambling related sites. Usually somewhere between 5-800 words, then add pictures and rich text.

[hcgroup]

I agree with you! Exactly.

Cheers!

This is the approach we're taking with our gambling related sites. Usually somewhere between 5-800 words, then add pictures and rich text.

[amysmart]

If we talk about blog posting then 300 words are used. Or in the case of articles submission we can use 500-600 words.

[WagerX]

I am testing out some anchor pages with higher word counts. I've targetted 1600 words with high quality content. the keyword is medium competetiveness. This is far beyond my 500ish word count anchor pages. I'll update you guys if there are any concrete results.