proper length of a good article

[mel_akey]

what do you think is a good length for an article? is it different for submitting an/or posting to your site?

[YMC]

It totally depends on the topic.

I have some how to articles that are 4-5 screens long (with diagrams) and others on simpler topics that are less than a screen.

I wouldn't focus so much on length as on completeness. Convey the complete story/idea without turning it into War and Peace.

If it starts getting waaaayyyyy tooooooo long, it might be time to separate it into multiple articles.

[noe]

800-1000 words

[Keith Taylor]

I've always thought brevity is best. I prefer to write articles no longer than 400 words.

If you're looking for keyword optimisation, 400 words should be more than enough to make an impact. Besides, in this age of diminutive attention spans you can really only expect to hold the reader's interest for a few hundred words.

[RRWH]

350-1200 words per page depending on the topic and attention span of the reader. For general info if you need to go beyond 1200 words make 2 articles.

The only exception to this is if the information is of a highly technical nature for a highly focussed audience then just break it apart as you would a chapter in a printed book.

Of recent times, I read an online artice that was approx 4000 words on 1 page and would not have read it if it was split onto even a 2nd page.

[ClothMaker111]

It completely depends on the type of site you have. If you build speciality content and are trying to attract a loyal user base, then a long, thorough article will serve you best. If your question is purely from an SEO standpoint, then 400-600 words of well-written content should satisfy both human and spider.

[KeithLDick]

If your article has the strength to keep your visitors captivated until the end, post the whole article....

If your not sure just post the 1st paragraph with a link to the rest of it...

[uca]

I agree on a length of 4-500 words approximately.

It obviously depends...

:)

[spjain81]

what do you think is a good length for an article? is it different for submitting an/or posting to your site?

250 to 400 words are enough for an article. Most of the people like 400 words. If you have around 1000-1200 words content then try to divide it in 3 articles because an article of 1000-1200 words provide only 1 backlink to your site but if it is divided in 3 articles it will provide you 3 backlinks.:)

[aad_lfcfn]

if its me, i would prefer to write two paragraph as an introduction and add 2-3 more paragraph as content for the article. It doesnt matter how much the word you can write.Try to make the article interesting. keep it professional. write like you're a jornalist. but be careful, don't write too flowerly.

[DeniseJ]

To be perfectly honest with you, I don't think there's an actual standard that can be applied when it comes to article length. You have to write enough to get your point across, but you don't want to drone on for paragraphs and risk losing the interest of visitors to your website.

Personally, I like to keep articles short and to the point unless I am writing an in-depth piece about a particular subject. If your article is captivating, easy to read and interesting enough length won't necessarily matter. If however your articles are sprinkled with spelling errors, incorrect sentence structures and grammatical mistakes, visitors will immediately hit the back button because they can't bear to read the rest.

Basically, it's important that your content is readable and interesting. If you've got both of those concepts down, you should be fine regardless of the length.

[Black_Hand]

I totally agree with Denise.

try to keep it short, simple and sweet! Write a perfect intro and draw ur readers attention!

[marketjunction]

If you have any formal training in writing (IE Journalism), the first thing you learn is that your content and audience dictates the appropriate length. This is also true for public speaking.

Having a word count in mind helps you drill down until your topic matches the goal. For example, if I had a topic of United Nations and a word count goal of 500 words, that would be too broad.

I could drill down further, say Security Council. It's still too broad. Drill down again to say Resolutions. If I want to skim the surface for a newbie-style audience, I could possibly stop here. However, if I want a nice article with some meat for future political scientists, I need to drill down further. Therefore, I move to Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapters 6 & 7. You should get the point, so I will stop here.

[YMC]

Personally, I think webmasters and writers spend way too much time evaluating articles by the number of words presented.

I can remember back in school when assignments had a stated word count minimum. I would usually spend more time getting to that magical number than worrying about what I was actually writing. Those assignments were always of a lesser quality than the ones that had no minimum requirements.

It would seem that counting words has simply become a way to evaluate a piece for pricing. Which is truly a shame because it takes the whole quality aspect out of the picture.

[Keith Taylor]

It would seem that counting words has simply become a way to evaluate a piece for pricing. Which is truly a shame because it takes the whole quality aspect out of the picture.

That said, it would be difficult to quantify quality.

"I'll give you a really good article for $25, or a really crappy one for $5."

It works out OK in the end. We content writers judge the quality of our own work and adjust our prices accordingly. So, the owner of a content farm with 100 semi-literate writers would price down to 2 dollars, while I will price up to $10+ for the same word count.

Whether the customer agrees with our assessment of the quality is another story entirely :)

[jhmattern]

My basic rule is to try to keep it to less than 500 words per page... and to try to keep articles to one page. (in Web writing at least) Of course there are exceptions, like certain how-to style pieces, list-based pieces, and things like samples or templates that work better w/o being broken up, even if they run long.

Think about your audience. If you're writing to more of an intellectual audience, they'll likely read more. If you're targeting teenagers on an entertainment-based site, then keep it short and sweet or you'll lose them. :)

Jenn

[jamesxp]

I try to keep a single article around 500 words - it doesn't take too long to read, or bore the audience too much. If the subject requires it, make it into a series and upload them over a few days or weeks to keep visitors returning.

[marketjunction]

I find it interesting that many people are associating an article's interest/boredom with word count. I have seen countless boring articles that were just a couple hundred words in length.

In fact, an article could be very boring just one sentence into it.

[YMC]

I find it interesting that many people are associating an article's interest/boredom with word count. I have seen countless boring articles that were just a couple hundred words in length.

In fact, an article could be very boring just one sentence into it.

This has turned into a great thread.

Maybe if we drop the web aspect of this and look at length as a measurement of what makes something readable.

Agatha Christy wrote mysteries that are really quite short when compared to what many others write. Yet, her books take me as long to read as do ones that are 2, 3 or even 4 times longer. She wrote at a level that was more intelligent and her longevity proves her worthiness as a writer; despite her relatively short stories.

From a length comparision, we have the whole Harlequin series. All are about the same length as a Christy novel; but they are certainly not of that quality, nor do they take as long to read.

But does lengthy equate to boring and redundant as some might have suggested? I recently finished a book by X .(I'll use X rather than have this turn into a literary discussion on authors.) The book was at least 3 inches thick, yet led to quite a few sleepness nights as I could not put it down.

So, would those of you here that seem to insist on equating length with readability completely discount the work of X; simply because his story took so much longer to tell? The millions who have purchased his books would disagree with you.

Perhaps the original poster's question and our answers should have focussed on article length vs SEO or some other metric rather than a discussion on quality; since what makes a "good article" is so very subjective.

Perhaps the most accurate answer that's been given is "It depends" and without additional information regarding topic or audience, any other answer would only be a guess.

[jhmattern]

This has turned into a great thread.

Maybe if we drop the web aspect of this and look at length as a measurement of what makes something readable.

Agatha Christy wrote mysteries that are really quite short when compared to what many others write. Yet, her books take me as long to read as do ones that are 2, 3 or even 4 times longer. She wrote at a level that was more intelligent and her longevity proves her worthiness as a writer; despite her relatively short stories.

From a length comparision, we have the whole Harlequin series. All are about the same length as a Christy novel; but they are certainly not of that quality, nor do they take as long to read.

But does lengthy equate to boring and redundant as some might have suggested? I recently finished a book by X .(I'll use X rather than have this turn into a literary discussion on authors.) The book was at least 3 inches thick, yet led to quite a few sleepness nights as I could not put it down.

So, would those of you here that seem to insist on equating length with readability completely discount the work of X; simply because his story took so much longer to tell? The millions who have purchased his books would disagree with you.

Perhaps the original poster's question and our answers should have focussed on article length vs SEO or some other metric rather than a discussion on quality; since what makes a "good article" is so very subjective.

Perhaps the most accurate answer that's been given is "It depends" and without additional information regarding topic or audience, any other answer would only be a guess.


I don't think it has anything to do with "boredom." The fact is simply that it's already a documented fact that Web readers have shorter attention spans and want scannable material. The attention span of youth (as per my original post) are also well known to be less than that of others. So when you combine the two, length does certainly, in most cases, come into play depending on who your audience is. Trying to compare Web articles to Agatha Christie novels and such is like comparing apples to oranges. You don't sit down with a novel and expect something specific. You expect to be engrossed by the story, and that's what determines if you keep reading or not. Not so on the Web a lot of the time. Instead, people tend to be looking for more specific information, and they'll browse a page with their eyes (hence why lists and bold headings are so important) until they find it rather than always reading every word. Most studies on the subject also express that people tend to not prefer scrolling much, hence why it's often pretty vital to keep articles short, unless you're targeting a specific audience that's more likely to read more content in one sitting (such as a business or medical professional who has an interest in reading through an entire study or report on a subject). It's not about boredom or quality, so much as it's about human nature, and understanding it to make your own work better serve your purposes.

Jenn

[marketjunction]

There's a reason why journalists thrive in the online writing world. Writing for the paper is the same as writing non-scholarly articles for the Internet. All the same principles apply. In fact, journalism is where all these little tidbits, like short attention spans, scanning, key points, piece-based writing and so forth came from.

[YMC]

Again, you prove why I don't think we were given enough information to answer the original question correctly.

Just taking a few phrases from your reply:


The attention span of youth
depending on who your audience is
people tend to be looking for more specific information
unless you're targeting a specific audience that's more likely to read more content in one sitting (such as a business or medical professional who has an interest in reading through an entire study or report on a subject)


Any one of those can greatly impact what makes an article effective or "good". The original question mentioned neither intended audience or topic.


Trying to compare Web articles to Agatha Christie novels and such is like comparing apples to oranges.

Actually my point, was good writing depends more upon the writing than the length; and I believe the comparison is a fair one. Again, the original poster did not clarify what type of content they were talking about.

Perhaps I should have used the more web-related example of Stephen King's book he serialized on the net? Did the scrolling and length deter folks from reading the story? Your own reply answered that - No, it was appropriate to the audience.

I've read quite a few blog entries that were quite informative and very-well written that were only a few sentences long; and others that went on for several screens that were just as compelling. Neither one was better than the other as they both conveyed information that was useful and readable.

There's also the long-running debate on the long sales-letter as a website. There are many who would argue that they are quite effective, yet they require the reader to scroll through numerous screens. Who's right? Again, it depends on the targeted audience.

That said, I think my point as well as MarketJunction's is that length alone is a horrible yard stick to use when determining what makes "good" writing; even if it is for the web.

My intended point, and one your own reply would confirm, is that what makes writing good or effective is totally dependent upon the topic and audience - neither of which we were given when the original question was asked.

[jhmattern]

I don't want to be overly argumentative, because I think if anything we actually agree on the fundamental of "good" writing. But the original post wasn't asking about quality. Simply a quantity:

"what do you think is a good length for an article? is it different for submitting an/or posting to your site?"

Also, it's obvious they're talking about Web content here as they're asking about posting it to their site. It sounds as though they're simply looking for a general rule for Web writing, which is something I think they've already gotten a few good answers for and plenty of feedback on. As we've both established already, other factors do come into play. But at the same time, there are certainly more general rules as to length on the Web that apply, and by the general consensus here between most of us w/in a set range, and coming from experience from major content networks to bloggers to our own sites, I think we've all already given the original poster what they wanted... as estimate and something to work from. :)

Jenn

[glennhefley]

This is one of those differences between web content and writing for a magazine or periodical. Typically magazines want close to 4000 words. If you put that much on a web page, you won't get many visitors that read it.

Most of my clients want articles between 700 to 1000 words. This is a good length for most subjects that need to be covered further than surface scratching. It also gives you room to bring the reader into the article.

The articles I write for d-a-l.com for example are usually about this long. Sometimes they go longer for subjects that have a lot of ground to cover.

Shorter articles, such as the 400-600 word variety are generally requested by someone that has read an SEO book. They believe that the search engines require at least 400-600 words on a page and don't want to pay for more than is necessary to achieve the goal of search engine indexing. They are not concerned with (on the whole) the topic being covered well, or the article being worth reading. I'm not suggesting this is wrong or bad, it just is.

For web copy, focused on the "worth reading" goal, I would suggest that if your article breaches the 1000 word mark, you go through it (after you are done), and see if you can re-write/edit/clean up the article so that it becomes shorter, but retains the message. This is good practice with any article, but especially for web content.

Some questions you might ask are:

"Do I need this whole paragraph, or can I just link to another article which explains that topic more fully",

"Am I putting too much into this article, when breaking it into two or three would be better.",

"is this joke really necessary, does it add to the message, or distract from the message",

"is everything in this article focused on the goal of this article"

Web content has a specific goal (another reason for the shorter length of the articles). This is caused by the readers. Readers of magazines and periodicals are "generally" interested in the large category their magazine or periodical covers. Readers of web pages are specifically interested in a couple of key areas.

Readers of a Hunting magazine are interested in Hunting, as a sport, as a supplemental food supply, as a gun enthusiast, as a survivalist, as a 'manly' thing.. etc. The reader is okay with just about anything, as long as it as to do with Hunting.

Readers interested in Hunting on the web however are asking a specific question and want the article they find to answer that question quickly. They don't want to wade through 4000 words in the hopes that the article eventually addresses the question they are interested in.

Hope this helps.

Glenn Hefley

[Angelus]

Mine bet would be between 300 and 4000 :). I really don't care about words (sometimes I do), it is the message that counts.

p.l.u.r.

[marketjunction]

Typically magazines want close to 4000 words.


Magazines don't want 4,000 word articles much. Those are features. Many want short 100 word sidebars, 300-500 word fillers and so forth. Pick up any good magazine and see how many pieces it has. Features are a small fraction.