Recommended Length for a Companies "Services" Page Content
-
I am in the process of revamping my company's website. I do WordPress Development, Design, and SEO consulting, and i'm running into a sort of writer's block when wring my services pages. For example, my page on WordPress Security has 388 words of "body" content, and I feel from a content perspective, it serves it's purpose, but from an SEO perspective it is considered a little light.
I really don't know what the SOP is here, because, I've literally seen competitors sites have a page on "WordPress Security" rank on the first page of Google with absolutely no content, an empty page.
I see a lot of the Moz posts are huge, thosands of words, and I know they perform very well (and they also have ton's of links / PR...etc) and I just want to do the right thing. I know sites like http://www.seerinteractive.com/our-services/search-engine-optimization have relatively short info pages as well.
Thanks in advance for your feedback.
Zachary Russell
President, ProTech Internet Group
-
I wouldn't set a fixed rule for number of words.
Here's a short list of what I do when writing content for a service:
- Determine the target audience
- Describe the service being provided
- Create personals
- Disqualify likely objections
- Provide your unique value proposition
- Add image(s), or data (charts) - if applicable
- Display testimonial(s) from the service
- Find the pages ranking for this service, see what they do well and find a way to do it better
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Google ranking content for phrases that don't exist on-page
I am experiencing an issue with negative keywords, but the “negative” keyword in question isn’t truly negative and is required within the content – the problem is that Google is ranking pages for inaccurate phrases that don’t exist on the page. To explain, this product page (as one of many examples) - https://www.scamblermusic.com/albums/royalty-free-rock-music/ - is optimised for “Royalty free rock music” and it gets a Moz grade of 100. “Royalty free” is the most accurate description of the music (I optimised for “royalty free” instead of “royalty-free” (including a hyphen) because of improved search volume), and there is just one reference to the term “copyrighted” towards the foot of the page – this term is relevant because I need to make the point that the music is licensed, not sold, and the licensee pays for the right to use the music but does not own it (as it remains copyrighted). It turns out however that I appear to need to treat “copyrighted” almost as a negative term because Google isn’t accurately ranking the content. Despite excellent optimisation for “Royalty free rock music” and only one single reference of “copyrighted” within the copy, I am seeing this page (and other album genres) wrongly rank for the following search terms: “free rock music”
On-Page Optimization | | JCN-SBWD
“Copyright free rock music"
“Uncopyrighted rock music”
“Non copyrighted rock music” I understand that pages might rank for “free rock music” because it is part of the “Royalty free rock music” optimisation, what I can’t get my head around is why the page (and similar product pages) are ranking for “Copyright free”, “Uncopyrighted music” and “Non copyrighted music”. “Uncopyrighted” and “Non copyrighted” don’t exist anywhere within the copy or source code – why would Google consider it helpful to rank a page for a search term that doesn’t exist as a complete phrase within the content? By the same logic the page should also wrongly rank for “Skylark rock music” or “Pretzel rock music” as the words “Skylark” and “Pretzel” also feature just once within the content and therefore should generate completely inaccurate results too. To me this demonstrates just how poor Google is when it comes to understanding relevant content and optimization - it's taking part of an optimized term and combining it with just one other single-use word and then inappropriately ranking the page for that completely made up phrase. It’s one thing to misinterpret one reference of the term “copyrighted” and something else entirely to rank a page for completely made up terms such as “Uncopyrighted” and “Non copyrighted”. It almost makes me think that I’ve got a better chance of accurately ranking content if I buy a goat, shove a cigar up its backside, and sacrifice it in the name of the great god Google! Any advice (about wrongly attributed negative keywords, not goat sacrifice ) would be most welcome.0 -
Does using Yoast variables for meta content overwrite any pages that already have custom meta content?
The question is about the Yoast plugin for WP sites. Let's say I have a site with 200 pages and custom meta descriptions / title tags already in place for the top 30 pages. If I use the Yoast variable tool to complete meta content for the remaining pages (and make my Moz issue tracker look happier), will that only affect the pages without custom meta descriptions or will it overwrite even the pages with the custom meta content that I want? In this situation, I do want to keep the meta content that is already in place on select pages. Thanks! Zack
On-Page Optimization | | rootandbranch0 -
Positioning rethinking regarding triplicate keyword "landing pages"
Hi! We're rethinking our website and we have some doubts on how it would affect our positioning. Our main keyword right now is "casas de madera". Positioning by this keyword we have three different "main" pages: Our home (http://www.canexel.es/) 2)SEO landing page (http://www.canexel.es/casas-de-madera/) 3)A blog section (http://www.canexel.es/blog/casas-de-madera/) We thought at first about changing our home main keyword, but this option has been ruled out since is the keyword that gives us the most visits and changing it would result on a rebrandindg strategy we are not sure we want to pursue. We're thinking about a canonical from the landing page (2) to our Home (1) and making it disappear from our website. Regarding our blog we've thought about removing the blog section. We've thought about a 301 from every post to a new category or just deleting the category "casas de madera" from our site and telling google not to index the section (3) but continue indexing the posts we already have published under this category. Would any of these harm our positioning? And, if so, is ther any other steps you wolud recomend us taking? In this same topic, we're about to create a SEM Landing page for this same keyword. This page will be very visual and with little text. We are not sure if we should have a canonical pointing from it to our home or just not indexing the new SEM landing page. What would you recommend? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | Canexel0 -
Ratings pages are Duplicate Content
This brought up another question. should the review page (which now has a canonical to the item page) be Index,follow? My item review pages are showing up with Duplicate Content errors in MOZ. Here are two examples http://www.americanmusical.com/ItemReview--i-HAM-SK1-LIST http://www.americanmusical.com/ItemReview--i-MAC-203680902-LIST is the problem that the pages contain the same code and questions with very little customer created info?
On-Page Optimization | | dianeb1520 -
In counting words for a "long article," do comments count in the word count?
As Moz and others have proven, long articles help ranking, linking and sharing. My question is, do the comments at the end of an article count in the word count as Google counts it.
On-Page Optimization | | bizzer0 -
Can somebody help me with a "Grade F" report
My Seomoz account tells me i've got a Grade F for my on-page optimalisation. The report said there's no single "on page keyword" usage at the whole page. Can somebody tell me what went wrong? If you take a look at my website: www.oceandrivers.nl, you'll see that i've used the keyword "prive chauffeur huren" everywere. In the URL, the H1 etc. (See image)
On-Page Optimization | | OceanDrivers
So i don't get it?! Thanks in advance! [](<a href=)" target="_blank">a> visWA visWA
0 -
Break-up content into individual pages or keep on one page
I am working on a dental website. Under menu item "services" lists everything he does like.. Athletic Sports Guards
On-Page Optimization | | Czubmeister
An athletic sports guard is a resilient plastic appliance that is worn to protect the teeth and gum tissues by absorbing the forces generated by traumatic blows during sports or other activities. Digital X-Rays We use state of the art digital x-rays and digital cameras to help with an accurate diagnosis of any concerns. Digital Imaging On initial visits, and recall visits, we take a series of digital photographs to aid us in diagnosis as well as to give you a close-up view of your mouth and any oral conditions. Smile Makeovers
We offer a number of different options including bleaching, bonding, porcelain veeners, and in some cases, implants and/or orthodontic care is utilized in our smile makeover planning. Nitrous oxide for your Comfort Would it be better to break these services up into individual pages? I was thinking I would because then I could add more pictures and expand on the topic and try to get an "A" grade on each page. I'm not sure how I could rank a page if I have 35 services listed on the page. That would be an awfully big H1! Suggestions?0 -
Follow up on "Canonical Tag Placement - Every Page?"
But if it is like Pete said, I don't understand why e.g. SEO Moz has a Canonical Tag on this Page http://www.seomoz.org/blog/canonical-url-tag-the-most-important-advancement-in-seo-practices-since-sitemaps Which leads to the exact same page!? What is the benefit of doing so? Regards
On-Page Optimization | | Here4You0