Community Discussion - Do you think increasing word count helps content rank better?
-
In the online marketing community, there is a widespread belief that long-form content ranks better.
In today's YouMoz post, Ryan Purthill shares how his research indicated 1,125 to be a magic number of sorts: The closer a post got to this word count, the better it ranked. Diminishing returns, however, were seen once a post exceeded 1,125 words.
- Does this jibe with your own data and experiences?
- Do you think increasing word count helps content rank better in general?
- What about for specific industries and types of content?
Let's discuss!
-
I have back correlated data to performance looking in particular at content length, keyword and phase density and prominence both overall and within different page elements against SERP rank and page performance (engagement or conversion based on whatever the particular critical measure might be). There does appear to be a minimal length of non-boiler plate text necessary to achieve both, although optimal length of content for inspection and semantic determination does not appear to be the same as page outcome, which should not be surprising.
What I have also found is that just while its possible to be too short with content, it is equally possible to be too verbose, particularly if the content begins to extend into a wide variety of topics and subtopics. My guess is that search engines have a harder time deciding what the message of a page is when it turns into an encyclopedia.
-
Numbers, number, numbers.
Simply put, no. You can rank an article 1st page for a highly sought after term, if it says something that is going to perfectly answer a question. It isn't the length of the text, but the content therein.
One example always given, is "i F***ing Love Science". They don't need to write 2000-word articles in order to rank well. Strength is partly in numbers here. They can rank short articles that contain a video with seemingly little work, but Google knows just how accurately it will answer a question.
As Egol also mentioned, there is also lots of studies into the use of the correct keywords, supporting content, and then look at EAT (Expertise, Authority & Trust) and YMYL (Your Money, Your Life) and simply put, are your trustworthy enough to believe what is said, and are you enough of an expert to be making statements about the subject.
I am loving content marketing at the moment as there is a lot going on, and seeing some fantastic wins!
-Andy
-
I don't believe it's the length or the number of words so much as how much more information those extra words bring to the table. More words isn't better, but more information is.
-
we should point out that long content the most of the time is really well written. The creator is looking to engage with the visitors and puts a lot of effort in that.
From my experience, this is really the correct answer.
We have a target minimum of 1500 words per landing page for our content team but of course, if they get to 1100 words and are genuinely stuck for quality content from there, 1100 is perfectly ok.
In the early days we started out with a minimum of 500 words and after noticing positive results within days of content going up we started increasing that and measuring the response in terms of rankings and user interaction. Each increment (800, 1000, 1500) saw consistent improvement over the previous one but 1500 words did seem to be the tipping point; beyond that there were significantly diminishing returns.
As you mentioned, that longer content is typically going to have far more effort into it so really, what the Moz study has measured is a correlation between quality+wordcount and improved rankings.
-
I don't think there is a magic number at all when it comes to content length. Writing an extra 500 words just to fluff up an article or SEO page isn't going to help anything or anyone. The ultimate goal of search engines is to provide the best results for a query, therefore the ultimate goal of content writing should be to solve a problem, provide an answer, et al. If you can do that in 200 words, great, if your product/service is complex and requires much more education and it takes 2,000 words, great.
We should write with the user in mind, get into the mindset of someone searching for our offerings and think about what we'd want to read, no matter how long. I don't care how great the content is, if I'm searching for a new pair of running shoes, I'm not reading 1,125 words, and if that's all I see when I land there, I'm bouncing.
-
Thanks for the info. If I look to the southeast from my home or my office the first major ridge of the Appalachians rises out of the Earth and occupies a spectacular 180 degrees of my view. If I cross a few of those ridges to the south the way people talk changes and words seldom heard elsewhere are common in the spoken language. I worked in that area for about twenty years and loved the words, the cadence and the tone that most people used.
-
I can't claim I know the origins of the word. I use it here only as a synonym of "cling on to". My name is a bit more mundane, in that it was a street I used to work on when I created my SEO accounts.
-
Glom ?? A word, I used to hear in a previous life.
Now, maybe I understand the name "Highland" ?
From what I know glom is a word from the Scots dialect, used here in the states by people in parts of New England and the Appalachians.
-
I think that this is going to fall into the same category as some other ideas about "optimal content". Back in the day there was "keyword density". Then came "latent semantic indexing" where your words had to relate to other words on your page. And now we have a "magic" word count (don't get me wrong, it's an interesting stat)
I had to spend a LONG time deprogramming people from these ideas because people glom onto them as the limit lines of SEO. They're dangerous in the sense that if someone thinks the line is "10% keyword density" or "1125 words" people will start measuring them and making sure that their page on "blue widgets" has exactly 10% KD and 1123 words so Google will love it (who cares if it's crap nobody will read?)
My advice on content is that it should read naturally. Don't pull out any measuring sticks. Stop with the SEO hyper-focus. If it doesn't read like something you would tell a personal friend it's probably not worth writing. Or ranking...
-
For a while I was seeing Google respond to certain search queries with in depth article options. They experimented with a small section that was similar to page by / author results. It doesn't seem to turn up as much but I did find this:
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/3280182?hl=en
Is this still happening?
-
I'm with EGOL on this. "Don't underestimate the value of great media, probably more valuable than the text but without the text it's impotent." I'd add promotion efforts to the that statement. Even great and long content needs a bit of promotion to get the attention it deserves.
-
I just read Ryan's article a second time and reflected on my beliefs as described above.
They looked at "related search" to see if there were topics that would beef up their articles. It is possible that adding information about topics made their article more relevant to Google because it "covered topics that people are asking about". I wonder if the "hernia" and "gall stones" articles had that type of improvement. That could explain the jump in rankings because of a sudden increase in the relevance of the article to the query.
I've always belived that "a diversity of important query words" is key to rankings. Ryan's study points to where the important query words are recommended by Google. I really like how he did this and plan to look at it when I revise old articles or write new articles.
I have always believed that a "media beyond text" is important. My thinking was that photo, video, tabluar data was where to get this. However, his "Q & A" and callouts with "prevalence information" might have the same effect because they give the reader "something special" to consider while reading the article. It is possible that the article already has such information embedded within it, but calling it out with a diverse format could be "refreshing change" or "more interesting" for the reader.
I think that his article was one of the most important articles that has been on the Moz Blog. Reading it a second time has probably been one of the best investments of my time in the past year. Thank you Ryan.
-
I feel it does. To get away from just link stuffing. Having quality content surrounding your anchor text in an informative and relative way I feel always performs better. I agree with the above comment on the 1000 words + always do seem to perform well.
I try and structure things to around 1 link, or anchor text, per decent paragraph of quality information.
-
Hi,
First of all we should put a limit: how long is too long? Personally I'd like to put the limit over 2.000 words.
It's known fact that Google loves long content. But also we should point out that long content the most of the time is really well written. The creator is looking to engage with the visitors and puts a lot of effort in that. That's why long content also ranks high.
In my experience nearly and above 1000 words always performed well. Even better than longer articles.
Also, I recommend my writers and my colleagues that make several articles when the extension is massive. That helps increasing interaction with the visitors and keeps them moving over other pages
GR
-
I don't think we can look at a word-count in a vacuum; not only because there are so many contributing factors, but because there are likely variables that effected this "magic number" (a concept that I feel is bunk) that weren't measured and considered or weighed in any way.
Most importantly, I don't think such a figure has any use to a specific person, business, site, etc. It's interesting data, but it says nothing about what any individual should do or expect. In my experience, my readers want anywhere between 300 - 2000 words; but again, this means practically nothing. There are different types of posts, subjects, content-uses, audiences based on these, and many other variables.
I think that, if one's data shows that their posts aren't doing well, word count is one area in which it may be worth exploring different solutions. But there are dozens of more vital and useful data points out there and readily available.
-
I don't believe in "magic numbers" and I don't believe that "walls of text" have any magic either.
I do believe that Google enjoys substantive content, that is understandably written, addresses a diversity of important query words for its topic, engages visitors, includes media beyond text, and is on a website that is in good technical health. The most important part of that is "engaging visitors" and that is a broad term that can include many on-site and off-site actions. Don't underestimate the value of great media, probably more valuable than the text but without the text it's impotent.
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
-
Angular website and ranking
Hi guys Unfortunately I have to optimize the angular website, but I don't know how google see my website. Seo quacke (seo extension) doesn't get data from this website: https://cafegardesh.com and sitemap generation tools just crawl 1 page of this website. why? How find that google really crawl and index angular website?
Reporting & Analytics | | denakalami0 -
Direct / (none) Spam Traffic Help
In July 2015, we experienced an over 1,000% increase in traffic and it has remained like that ever since. It's all spam traffic and I have no clue how to get rid of it. I added in your typical .htaccess blocks from known culprits with little to no effect. Read up on Ghost traffic and applied filters to no effect. The spam is completely distributed as far as I can tell both geographically as well as by network providers. Where once we had pretty decent bounce rates of around 50%, now, since all my Analytics data is meaningless - it's around 90%. I could apply a filter but beyond my GA account providing no insights, I'm also concerned about the increased use of server resources. I'd ideally like to stop the traffic completely. The only distinguishing feature of the traffic that I have been able to determine is browser size. Comparing June 2015 to July 2015 we saw the following: Browser size visits: 620 x 460 = 6,828 vs 0, 610 x 450 = 175 vs 0, 1330 x 630 = 71 vs 1, 1890 x 940 = 67 vs 0, 780 x 580 = 58 v 5. Other than that, I can find no unifying theme to the traffic beyond being traffic hitting our homepage and having no medium. Nothing special that I am aware of happened in July. We didn't do any sort of...really anything. We did have our network compromised by ransomware in the beginning of June, which we promptly ignored and restored backups - at no point did we try to contact the criminals, but I am doubtful there is any connection considering that our website is remotely hosted. If anyone has any suggestions or has seen anything like this before, please let me know. spam-traffic.jpg
Reporting & Analytics | | Nivik230 -
Had suspicious spike in Adsense clicks, next day site ranking tanks
Yesterday, one of my sites had extreme Adsense clicks for several hours in the morning, which brought it up to CTRs of around 120%. My normal CTR is about 10-15%. It added several hundred dollars income over and above my normal amount. After that, it went back to normal. I have waited to see if Google would adjust the income down, as someone or some bot seemingly clicked the heck out of the site's ads. Nothing has been adjusted; it's been 24 hours. Question #1: what usually causes this type of insane clicking to occur (i.e. competitors messing me?) Then, today I noticed something else disturbing. I cannot find my site in the top 100 SERPs for the main keyword. I was at #1 for a couple years, then, when I changed themes from Thesis to Genesis (site otherwise exactly the same) a couple months ago, I bounced around various positions on the first page. In the last couple weeks we've been bouncing between the teens and the thirties. Two days ago we were at #15. (the site is still indexed when I use "site:" to check. It seems awfully coincidental that yesterday I had the Adsense click explosion, and today I'm not even in the top 100 for the first time in my pretty stable two-year history, and have no idea how far behind 100 I am. I went to Google Webmaster Tools and see no errors or warnings relating to this. Adsense has not sent me any messages. So... Question #2: does Google search apply some sort of penalty to site that have suspicious Adsense clicking? By the way, I don't have any funny business going on with any bad SEO practices, it's all above board, and I have thousands of real readers each day Liking and commenting on the pages. It's a very real site. Note: I have been checking the ranking each day via a Google Incognito window and searching for the term. Of course I use MOZ but I do the Incognito search for a quick real time check, which I've found to be accurate.
Reporting & Analytics | | bizzer0 -
Why am i getting a flux of increase in Impressions on my site & then it decreases
They guys. Hope everyone is having a great week. I wanted to get some inputs from you guys in regards to what is happening to my site that i quite don't understand. Every month or so i get this influx of high visibility with impressions for my keywords and then the impressions go away but my rankings still keep going up. Has anyone experienced this before and can give me some insight on what is going . Why do i get such a big jump and then it dies off only to return again a month later or 2 months later. I know you guys want probably some info from my site or from analytics or webmaster tools so i will provide as much as i can . For now i have included a screen shot. ScreenShot2013-06-04at31220PM_zps0d02f5fc.png ScreenShot2013-06-04at31134PM_zps5bb81b68.png ScreenShot2013-06-04at31134PM_zps5bb81b68.png ScreenShot2013-06-04at31220PM_zps0d02f5fc.png
Reporting & Analytics | | BizDetox0 -
Duplicate page content
I'm seeing duplicate page content for tagged URLs. For example:
Reporting & Analytics | | DolbySEO
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/about-us/careers/landing.html
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/about-us/careers/landing.html?onlnk=al-sc as well as PPC campaigns. We tag certain landing pages purposefully in order to understand that traffic comes from these pages, since we use Google Analytics and don't have the abiility to see clickpaths in the package we have. Is there a way to set parameters for crawling to exclude certain pages or tagged content, such as those set up for PPC campaigns?0 -
Rank #1 for a 110,000/month query search, but barely any traffic?
Hi guys, As it says in the title, we've recently reached the absolute #1 position for a certain key phrase in the travel industry which the Google Keyword Tool tells me averages 110,000 local (165,000 global) searches a month... however we have received barely any traffic at all over the past TWO months for it and I'm trying my best to determine why. We've checked on multiple different devices with all forms of personalisation off, different browsers, 3G connections as opposed to office Wi-FI etc. and it still returns us as the #1 rank. Meta descriptions and title tags are pretty much pristine if I don't say so myself, however what should be a very lucrative key phrase is currently returning little to no traffic results. Has anyone had experience in a similar situation to this? Any possible causes that I might be missing? Would greatly appreciate any help. Thanks.
Reporting & Analytics | | ExperienceOz0 -
Google Webmaster Tools is showing wrong data - help?
Hey all, I'm seeing some weird problems with Webmaster Tools. Specifically: We've submitted a sitemap with 174k URLs. According to the WMT dashboard, only 21 are indexed, though if you search our site via site:sitename.com blah blah, there are thousands of pages returned. Why is WMT only showing 21 indexed pages? Yet if I go to Health -> Index Status, it's showing nearly 199k URLs indexed. This seems consistent with searching Google site:sitename.com blah blah. Under "Search Queries", it's showing "no data available". Not sure why as it's linked to the proper Google Analytics account, which has keyword data. Any ideas what I'm doing wrong here? Thanks.
Reporting & Analytics | | chimptech0 -
Erratic movements on Rank Tracker-why is this?
I have been looking at 2 key words for my site & three other sites, I am refreshing daily to understand it movements and the movements have been really erratic - droping 8 places in one day, then back 7 places the next. There have not been any changes made to the site in question during this period other than I me starting to track them with SEOmoz - Can anyone explain what would be behind this? thanks, S
Reporting & Analytics | | girlie0