Ask: Short content is good?

Hi there,

I was create a new blog with short contents, probably around 100-200 words. Is it safe?
I need your advice.

Thanks

 

Content of 100 to 200 words is very short. If you want to promote your blog than write at least 400 to 500words content otherwise it will only be a waste of your time.

 

Yes, It is safe as long as it is unique.

 

Yes, you are right, but my question is it safe for make content with only 100 to 200 words?

 

At least 300-400 words are recommended. Use good keywords in the article, write it yourself, do NOT copy/paste or even do NOT use spun articles!

 

It's safe if it's unique content, but such short posts are not going to gain you a lot of traffic or interest from readers. Posts generally need to be at least 300 words in my opinion.
But, you should also consider how these posts are formatted. You don't want walls of text turning people off.

If you're selling something, it would be best to have a short text at the top of the post, then some images, and the rest of the text at the bottom. This way, you are supplying what the hasty reader needs to see before giving them visuals, while offering more below for those more interested in reading about the product. This lengthier text then also gives Google and other SE's what they need.

 

As per my knowledge, if its unique, then you should not be in to any trouble. However, do not make "all" the posts with 100-200 words. Whatever be the information, it would catch the attention of the visitors if it briefs all the questions related to it. Try to catch the attention of the visitors and do not worry about the word count!

 

I think it depends on your niche. If your readers are looking for short information or quick fixes, they will prefer short content. But for those who are serious about their questions and want to find the best result for their answer, long contents win (definitely)

 

I agree that it's important to meet the needs of the reader. There are probably more people who just want to find quick information, but this shouldn't stop you from creating something more comprehensive either. It's known that Google prefers longer content, so it makes sense to provide both on a site.

Offer the straightforward answer in the top of a page or post, then elaborate on it and produce something more comprehensive. This way you are giving everyone what they need, and perhaps most importantly, you're giving Google the text content it needs to be able to rank you well.

 

Content of 100-200 word is very short, I would prefer you to increase a bit more to 400-450 words and yes do target your keywords !

 

Hey There,

If you using your 200 words content in any article or blog then I think this is not enough. Your content should be at list 400 words to 500 words. But if you are still submitting your 200 words content then you have create good points on your content so you can cover all the things about your topic in short content..

 

Short content shouldn't result in a direct penalty, but you could be setting yourself up for trouble in other ways ... for example, if your time on site ends up being too low, or you end up with a high bounce rate as a result, you'll likely get in trouble with Panda. But there's nothing I'm aware of that would directly punish you for short content.

 

Content length makes absolutely no difference at all to Google (which is what I presume you're asking), especially on a blog. Everyone always talks about 400-500 words but that's a completely arbitrary number based around an accepted standard article length. It has no other importance.*

As long as the content says what you want it to and interests your visitors, what else matters?

* Unless you're trying to build an authority site in an academic niche or something!

 

In my view, content should minimum 300-400 words. Try to post unique and fresh content.

 

Sorry, but you're just plain wrong.
I have conducted my own tests on this over the last three years, blogs or sites with more text content consistently do better than those with less.

Look at it this way, with all else being equal (links, age, niche etc), you have to compete with those in your field through the supply of content. Look at the results at the top of Google for your competitive niche and see how much content they have on a page, and how often they update their content. That is something that you need to beat.

If your biggest competitor is adding 300 words of on-page content every day, you need to add 350 or more every day, or twice a day. If everything else is equal, you will rank higher than your competition because you are offering the searcher more than others are.

Suggesting that the on-page content is irrelevant is a little baffling to me, this is how Google works. If you add more relevant content than your direct competition you have a greater chance to adequately competing with them.

 

what is bad about spun articles?

 

easily detected by search engines and then they will penalize you for it (your site, not you - they're not coming round to beat you or anything)

 

I'm not wrong, but you're not wrong either... we're talking about two slightly different things. I said Google doesn't care about article length; you said sites with more text consistently do better. Your version includes reader reaction, backlinks and other things that move sites up the search rankings, while mine was purely a response based on whether Google promotes or penalises content based on length (which it doesn't).

Google is moving more and more towards a qualitative approach, rather than quantitive. Simply having more words on a page does NOT make your page more valuable (especially if it's crappy content). Of course, the other engines are still back in the 90s in most ways, so having longer content may still make your site more lovable for them.

You need to beat their authority, their quality and their usefulness, not the number of words they have on their site.

Taking that wonderful phrase, "all else being equal", I think the important thing is to realise that NOTHING is equal except two copies of the same site published at precisely the same moment - and even then, there will be differences in backlinks and stuff (because of natural evolution).

Three comments on this paragraph:

1. I didn't say on-page content is irrelevant. I said the length of individual articles is.
2. Your second statement is absolutely true. It's also an extension of what I'm saying.
3. Your second statement in no way contradicts anything either of us have said: again, I'm just saying that the amount of text in an article is not important (provided it's not 20 words or something incredibly short all the time). If you have 1,000 really awesome short articles that people love, you'll rank higher than someone who has 100 crappy ones that are 10 times as long and not interesting.

An excellent phrase I found on a site talking about content length (and who did tests and stuff) was this: "The interesting part is that Google doesn’t prefer more content because it feels it is more valuable. It actually prefers content rich sites because data shows [readers] like it". Consequently, if your readers in your niche prefer short content, you'll do very well.

Quality, not quantity, every time.

 

It is very short my dear, You have to add a little bit more to your content. You must have at least 300 words in an article.

 

Agreed, but on the question of which is better, surely this means that having more comprehensive and detailed information is therefore going to be a benefit in the eyes of Google. It's true that Google doesn't actively demote sites based on the level of text content, but having that detailed and thorough content on the page is only going to benefit you. It is certainly not going to do you any harm.

Having a post of 100 words about anything is not likely to inform or engage the reader, whether the response by Google is driven by their own decisions of text quantity or the response of the arriving reader, the impact is the same.

Again I disagree. If the information provided is accurate and of a high quality, then more is more. If I am seeking an answer to a question, is Google more likely to promote a page with a single paragraph offering little insight or information, or more likely to offer a comprehensive post of informative content with images, graphs, statistics, bullet points and other formatting signals indicating that it is of a more thorough nature?

We know the answer to this already, Google has even stated in the last two years that more detailed content on a page is beneficial not only to the reader but to your chances of being recommended as a valuable source of that information.

It's generally accepted that Google began to place much more importance on the use and position of images, the inclusion of quotes, the use of bullet points and other formatting signals to ascertain whether the content on a page was more useful than that on another.

A single paragraph of text cannot possibly offer the same level of insight as a full-page of informative content.

I think you've taken this to be too literal.
If you have a site that is in direct competition with another, and they are adding shallow content, you can quite easily gain an advantage by adding more informative content to your pages. Of course it goes without saying that no two sites are identical in every facet, this is not my intended meaning.

Take two websites with similar subjects and similar good health generally, if one provides shallow content with daily updates, competition dictates that more thorough content more often can quickly elevate you above them.

Quality AND quantity, every time.

I think we have come to the same conclusion, in a round-about way; Google won't actively punish you for having less content, being relevant and on-point is key. However, we disagree when we discuss how this impacts a site and the benefits of having more comprehensive content than a competitor.