Why might post length matter?
Google recently changed its search algorithms to favour longer blog posts – 2000 words or more. This and other changes are aimed at improving the quality of our search results. The rational is that this helps us find detailed, meaningful content and less of the flimsy, soundbites.
So now Google is prioritising longer posts, do I want or need to start producing 2000 word posts to help my site’s profile?
There are rationales for long and short post-lengths but the behaviour of the casual reader on sites like mine, might be different from the masses heading to the large information and commercial sites. I’m therefore interested in you and your behaviours.
To avoid influencing anyone, I will save my views to discuss along with results in a follow up post.
Thank you!
Example Posts of varying Lengths
Short (230 words) 3 Reasons To Go Easy On New Year Resolutions
Medium (1041 words) What is a scene exactly?
Long (2762 words) CHEMO BRAIN Part III – Notes to Self
Here’s the poll.
Have a think about when you first come across a new blog post that’s of possible interest to you. All other things considered, please select the response that best fits your usual feelings about post length.
Lisa Reiter - Sharing the Story 
January 16, 2016 at 7:21 pm
I am curious, Lisa: Is the link that Charli provided essentially what you are referring to? Because I can’t find any news related specifically to Google changing its algorithm.
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 19, 2016 at 6:47 pm
Hi Paula, I originally read something on LinkedIn and of course cannot trace backwards to find it again! I get loads of techie references when I google all this so I’m just wondering if you’re on Bing or Yahoo? And they’re ignoring it all?!!
LikeLike
January 14, 2016 at 12:52 pm
I’ve voted and as I am writing for my readers and myself I will probably not care about Mr google and continue doing just what i have been doing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
January 18, 2016 at 1:28 pm
I think Charli explains nicely why we needed care much! I can only do what I do anyway. Those chemo brain posts were quite a time investment..
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 14, 2016 at 1:22 am
Hi Lisa. I didn’t know about this latest from Google so thanks for your post. I’m barely managing to blog at the moment never mind worrying about post length. So it seems 2000 is the new 500? That was the ‘preferred’ blog length for a time wasn’t it? I never stuck to any formula though. Honestly, and I know it sounds cheesy and gushy, but I can’t help it, I am so grateful for anyone who bothers to read my blog because we all find it so hard to keep up. I like that I can do whatever I want in my summerhouse, post about my garden or my robin or writing or a walk or about guns and neighbours from hell and Asperger’s and not worry about post length. Although thinking of it,one of my longest posts about Asperger’s gets the most consistent views. I hate the thought of having to fit into some sort of formula just to get better views and ranking on Google, it puts me right off. But…the big but… we do have to think about marketing and I agree with Charli about deciding if a technical strategy would work for our goals. Something we do need to think about if we’re serious about this ‘stuff’. Yet my memoir lies untouched since early December so I’m in a big freeze about that. But at least I’ve come up with my next post title – Blogging: What’s The Point? 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 14, 2016 at 1:26 am
PS Sorry Lisa, I forgot to say, I’ve voted and look forward to reading your follow up post 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 18, 2016 at 1:28 pm
Thanks Sherri xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 13, 2016 at 2:26 am
I had to further comment after reading comments…there seems to be a discrepancy between what readers value and what Google is rewarding. However, the 2,000 word ranking covers a category they launched in 2014 called “in-depth.” Their intent is to curate well-researched content and there’s more to it than word count (evergreen, take-aways, headlines, unique, pagination, logos). Why the feature? Because marketers got good at supplying content to promote or sell products or services, but some marketers got sleazy about supplying cheap tricks to get higher SEO rankings. In-depth, evergreen content overrides all that promotional-based content so readers can find actual information and not a gilded sales pitch or affinity reviews masquerading as content.
So, as a blogger, do you want the in-depth rankings? Say I was a serious journalist who wanted to write Rock Creek as non-fiction. I’d be better served to have a strategy that fit the in-depth model because I’d build credibility as a researcher. But I’m writing fiction. Yes, I love the research, but I’m not a serious journalist — deep within me is an imaginative soul who can’t help but ponder human motives and what if twists. I’m an artist as much as a writer. My canvas is the page, words my paint. Therefore, what matters to me are readers who like to read what I craft…readers who like my style, voice and imagery. I doubt I’d find those readers on Google’s in-depth category.
It’s good to assess what you are doing as writer, who you are writing for and then decide if a technical strategy would work for your goals. Otherwise I think bloggers seem to understand that they are writing for their readers. If you want to optimize your website to be featured “in-depth” by Google, then learn how at Google’s guidelines: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/3280182?hl=en
LikeLiked by 3 people
January 14, 2016 at 1:25 am
Thanks for your extremely helpful and knowledgeable (as always) advice and link Charli. I’m clueless about this stuff…
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 19, 2016 at 6:43 pm
Thanks for this Charli. I hope you don’t mind but it’s such a good explanation, I’ve cut and paste part into the follow up post xx
LikeLike
January 11, 2016 at 5:27 pm
I resently asked the same question on my blog and the overwhelming responce was that if the article is intersting, lenght doesn’t matter.
I tend to agree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 11, 2016 at 1:04 pm
Hi Lisa, I have had a bit of a rant through the comments. I have also voted. I’m pleased you initiated this discussion as post length is something that I think about constantly. Reading and commenting take up a lot of time and if bloggers waffle, repeat themselves, and have multiple grammar and spelling errors demonstrating that they have churned out a lengthy post without either re-reading or editing, then I find it frustrating and lacking in respect for me as a reader. Although I enjoy reading the writing of bloggers I follow, if my time is tight I will often check the length before reading. If it looks to be more than about 1200 words I won’t read. I definitely won’t read many 2000 word posts. Thanks for the opportunity of expressing what has been on my mind. 🙂
LikeLiked by 4 people
January 12, 2016 at 5:25 pm
Glad to be of service – facilitating a good old rant! Everyone’s bursting with a viewpoint but I’m supposed to be avoiding influencing the outcome with my own views! So I shall resist until I publish the results! Thank you for curating the comments so well so far! LOL 😘
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 13, 2016 at 10:46 am
It is unusual for me! I don’t usually interrupt quite so much. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 13, 2016 at 11:30 am
Clearly some strong feelings on this one 😊
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 13, 2016 at 12:17 pm
Yeah, but partly because of my own frustration at giving so much time to reading and commenting on blogs (I’d hate to add it up) but never getting to them all. I have to do something differently. My emotions were so stirred up by making those comments just before bedtime that I had difficulty sleeping. Expressing my frustration became a double dose of stress. I am better to just let it go, accept what I can do and leave what I can’t. Always a pleasure to see you though. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 14, 2016 at 12:13 am
I didn’t come up with a formula for ‘blogging lite’ but tend to scan my favourite blogs and just pick a post to keep in touch, rather than attempt them all. It’s a nightmare otherwise, especially with those chucking out daily posts! Xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 15, 2016 at 8:28 am
I agree! Two a week to write and read, for each, is mostly what I aim for. I have no way or intention of keeping up with daily posts. I figure they have many more readers than just me! 🙂
LikeLike
January 11, 2016 at 11:29 am
Post length never influences me if it’s something I’m interested. If I find myself wondering about the post length, it’s because really, I’m not that interested. Its a complete farce; longer posts are not necessarily more informative or more engaging. Well just get longer posts of waffle instead of shorter ones. What a joke! Looks like they want quantity over quality. A post should be exactly as long as it needs to be.
LikeLiked by 6 people
January 11, 2016 at 12:56 pm
Totally agree. A post should be exactly as long as it needs to be. But who is the judge of that? Sometimes I’d love to tell a blogger to stop waffling and repeating, to be concise and just give me the message. Maybe others want to tell me that too. I don’t know. But then no one’s forcing us to read anyway. I guess as long as we are writing what we want and are happy with our readership, that’s all that matters.
LikeLiked by 2 people
January 11, 2016 at 9:32 am
Thanks for sharing this, Lisa, another of those things I didn’t know about. I agree that some shorter posts can be a bit flimsy and probably of interest only to a blog’s regular followers. But, as Charli and Sarah both say, there’s a real skill in condensing an interesting observation into a couple of hundred words, and longer posts can often be waffle. My ideal length, as reader or writer of blogs is 800 words, and personally I feel disappointed when I go over that (although sometimes that’s through quotes that the reader in a hurry can easily skip).
I’m disappointed that Google has come up with this, 2000 words are far too many for the casual browser.
LikeLiked by 5 people
January 11, 2016 at 12:53 pm
Definitely agree. 2000 is usually far too many words for me, though I did read Lisa’s Chemo Brain at the time because I was interested in her. I agree 800 to 1000 is a length I usually aim for and don’t like to go over. I find longer posts that seem to be filled with repetition and waffle very frustrating and lacking in respect for myself as reader and writer, with things to do other than read their every word.
LikeLiked by 4 people
January 11, 2016 at 4:28 am
I understand the idea behind the Google algorithm, but I think those who try to “cheat” the system will do so with more words. Quality is not about quantity. A good writer can express or engage with any number of words. What matters is what is being expressed and how. I don’t think “longer posts” will necessarily matter for getting new readers to discover our blogs. It will matter more to businesses, but a robust campaign of short posts will often satisfy customers who might follow stories for websites they do business with. Interesting discussion to start, Lisa!
LikeLiked by 5 people
January 11, 2016 at 12:49 pm
I definitely agree that what is being expressed is what matters. However with the work of many bloggers to read and limited reading time, I tend to leave the longer ones that don’t grab me immediately until “later” or not at all.
LikeLiked by 2 people
January 10, 2016 at 11:36 pm
How many post might I read if they are all 2,000 words? Far fewer than if they are shorter. 🙂
LikeLiked by 4 people
January 11, 2016 at 12:47 pm
Exactly! For me to read a 2000 word post it needs to speak to me directly and not waste my time with repetition, bad grammar and typos.
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 12, 2016 at 3:38 pm
And let’s face it, every post won’t speak to you directly. I feel guilty for not reading them all, but there aren’t enough hours in a day.
LikeLiked by 3 people
January 13, 2016 at 10:32 am
I feel exactly the same way. I would love to read them all. It’s just impossible. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 13, 2016 at 11:10 pm
I wonder if we began a petition for more hours in a day, would we be successful with enough names on it. 😀 😀 😀
LikeLiked by 3 people
January 15, 2016 at 8:25 am
I don’t know why “they” haven’t changed it to 25 hours in a day and 10 days in a week. It would be much easier to calculate! 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
January 15, 2016 at 5:12 pm
‘They’ need some help with math. 😀
LikeLiked by 2 people
January 10, 2016 at 10:58 pm
Reblogged this on TanGental and commented:
Lisa raises an interesting question about length and attractiveness. Please have a look and vote.
LikeLiked by 2 people
January 12, 2016 at 5:18 pm
Thanks for re-blogging this one Geoff 😘
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 10, 2016 at 9:31 pm
Ah! And here we are on the same proverbial page. Again. I have a piece written in defense of the short post. You know I love challenging myself to my 200 words or less posts. And the 99 flash. But I’ve noticed that the long posts I used to write (which would be your “medium”, probably) have become less and less… Apparently, I’ll not be picked up by the Google spiders. Eh. I’m okay with that. Sometimes, if a post has captured me, I’ll read it no matter what length it is but I definitely prefer short/med posts so I can get to more.
LikeLiked by 4 people
January 11, 2016 at 12:46 pm
I love your 200 word posts. It means we can engage frequently. And you do conciseness with thought-provoking so well, Sarah.
LikeLiked by 3 people
January 14, 2016 at 12:24 am
Thanks, Norah. ❤
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 19, 2016 at 6:49 pm
So rude. My first comment on this post and my last reply.. In my head we’d already had a full blown conversation about this and agreed wholeheartedly with ourselves about our view of the postiverse! Xx
LikeLike