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
-
Page Speed or Site Speed which one does Google considered a ranking signal
I've read many threads online which proves that website speed is a ranking factor. There's a friend whose website scores 44 (slow metric score) on Google Pagespeed Insights. Despite that his website is slow, he outranks me on Google search results. It confuses me that I optimized my website for speed, but my competitor's slow site outperforms me. On Six9ja.com, I did amazing work by getting my target score which is 100 (fast metric score) on Google Pagespeed Insights. Coming to my Google search console tool, they have shown that some of my pages have average scores, while some have slow scores. Google search console tool proves me wrong that none of my pages are fast. Then where did the fast metrics went? Could it be because I added three Adsense Javascript code to all my blog posts? If so, that means that Adsense code is slowing website speed performance despite having an async tag. I tested my blog post speed and I understand that my page speed reduced by 48 due to the 3 Adsense javascript codes added to it. I got 62 (Average metric score). Now, my site speed is=100, then my page speed=62 Does this mean that Google considers page speed rather than site speed as a ranking factor? Screenshots: https://imgur.com/a/YSxSwOG **Regarding: **https://six9ja.com/
Reporting & Analytics | | Kingsmart1 -
MOZ rankings HUGE drop to 1
Hello, My website's MOZ rankings dropped dramatically to DA 1 PA 1 MOZ rank 0 Backlinks 0. A problem seems that my backlinks are no longer recognised, as there are of course many backlinks active and not the 0 mentioned. Also, I recently experienced a big drop in Google SERP, only for my homepage (main keyword), not for subpages (longtail). I don't know what might be the cause for the SERP and MOZ drop. The only thing I can think of is that the past months I first changed from http://www.mydomain to http://my domain and later to https://mydomain However this was done properly and added in Google search console. Also Google SC does recognise my backlinks still (eventhough most are to the old redirected http://www.mydomain version). Can this be the cause, or do you have any suggestions what might be the cause, or what I can do to find out? Obviously I am interested in finding out the reason for the big SERP drop as this might have to do with the same cause for the big MOZ drop. Thanks! 🙂
Reporting & Analytics | | Torilion0 -
Site Hacked: Is it Faster and Better to 301 or 404 Irrelevant URLs?
Hey Everyone, So our site was hacked which created a large amount of irrelevant URLs on our domain; resulting in thousands of 404 errors and pages coming up for searches unrelated to our brand. The question is now that the issues have been resolved (and site re-submitted) would it be quicker (and more ideal) to redirect important 404 errors that see traffic, have links…etc. although not relevant or just let everything 404 out? We’re not as concerned with offering a relevant user experience because these are not in our demographic but want to avoid these pages convoluting our analytics as well as issues that might arise from Google thinking these topics do apply. Any help or insight would be very appreciated. Please let us know if you have any questions, concerns or we could provide further details that might help. Looking forward to hearing from all of you! Thanks in advance. Best,
Reporting & Analytics | | Ben-R0 -
Query on google analytic event report and customized report - Please help.
For my site I placed Black Friday offer.Now I have highlighted one product at homepage banner and tracking that with event. I am sharing with you actual figures of 1 day from Google analytic. Your proper response on this query will really really really helpful to me for understanding google analytic deeply and properly. So pls give your precious time for answering me, I will be thankful to you from bottom of my heart. I am checking event report from behavior, following is report for by that product event - Sessions - 30
Reporting & Analytics | | pragnesh9639
Unique Events - 30
Total Events - 34
Ecommerce Conversion Rate - 3.33% I am checking now report from All pages via Behaviour section - Page views - 97, Unique Page Views - 62, Entrances - 7, Bounce Rate - 57.14%, %Exit - 17.53% Now I create customize report for the same by adding
session -7
Ecommerce conversion rate - 0
unique events -4 MY query - when I added session in customized report then it is different from Event session why (7 and 30) ? same way Ecommerce conversion rate in customized report showing 0% why ( 0% and 3.33% ) ? same way unique events 4 and 30 ? do you suggest what is the best way to analysis such page or what will be best customize report for such analysis? Thanks0 -
Google Analytics: Dashboard to show popular content per directory
Hello, I work for a furniture business and I would like to set up a dashboard in Google Analytics to show a table for each of the 10 sections to show the most popular content, ie. /Sofas
Reporting & Analytics | | Bee159
/Sofas/black-leather-sofa | 987 PVs
/Sofas/brown-leather-sofa | 782 PVs
/Sofas/classic-material-sofa | 636 PVs
etc. /Beds
/Beds/king-size-bed | 900 PVs
etc How would I go about doing this? Thank you0 -
Improved keyword ranking but less traffic
Hello fellow mozzers! My collegue and I are a bit puzzled in regards to our recent website statistics. In november 2013, we upgraded the technological platform of our website to be fully HTML5 coded, and implemented the schema.org Products scheme to systematically tag all our products on the site. To prevent too much loss of visitors, we created a 301-redirect table from almost all our old URL's to the specific new ones, as we implemented a new URL structure as well. The first few months were bumpy as expected, making a huge drop in rankings before rising up again. Our keyword rankings are better then ever (60% of the keywords in top 3, average competition, 25% more on first SERP) but our number of visits dropped by about 10%. Our bounce rate went down from 20% to 14%, our returning visits are stable, but our new visitors stats dropped by 25% as well. This comparison was made between equal periods in the current year and last year, using organic data stats. (new technical platform vs. the old one) What could be the reason that our number of visits dropped 10% while our keyword ranking is better then ever? We don't have any manual penalties in GWT and can't understand why visits would drop so much while ranking improved. May it be so easy that there's just less search volume on our ranked content or does anyone have other ideas? Thank you all in advance!
Reporting & Analytics | | EconostoNL0 -
Why such a high page rank with so low metrics in OSE
Hi,
Reporting & Analytics | | sebastiankoch
The website is:
www.s123parka123ble.com (remove the 123) All websites I have ever seen with similar metrics in OSE have normally a PR of 2 or 3 or max 4. This one is PR 5 and I would like to know why. I also noticed that they do not redirect the urls without www. to www. Which is normally bad ... can it be good for some reason in this case? It is PR 5 since a long time I just can´t get why it is PR 5. Please have a look. Thanks!0 -
What's the final word on Image Search tracking in Google Analytics?
Sorry if this has been answered but I can't seem to get a straight answer to my questions by searching around. How is traffic referred by Google Images counted in Google Analytics? I know it used to be referral traffic from google.com/imgres. A lot of things I have read say that it should all be under google/organic now, but my site still gets referral traffic from google.com/imgres, so that can't be. However I also get traffic as google/organic that I am pretty sure is from image search, because we don't rank for the keyword normally, but we do for image search. What's the deal? How is traffic from an embedded image in a regular result page counted? How can I segment my image search traffic better? It would be great to see image search traffic as it's own medium. I found a script here -- http://jrom.net/google-images-in-google-analytics -- that looks promising, has anyone used it or can recommend another way? I haven't used the GA API very much so I want to make sure the script is kosher and won't screw up my numbers.
Reporting & Analytics | | tact0