How many words is enoug for good SEO page

Lets say I have a site with 3 pages and 300 words optimyzed text in each page. Is that enough to start or do you prefer more unique text?
Additional question: what structure is better: 1 page with 900 words, 2 pages with 450 each? 4 pages 225 words each etc?

 

Why do people feel they need a specific amount of words per page? The whole concept of writing quality content is to provide all the nessessacy information needed for that topic, subject, etc. So what your asking makes it seem your writing content strictly for search engines and not for human visitors, which is wrong.

Write your content naturally, don't worry about how many words you used, worry about the quality and the uniqueness of the content itself. I find it hard to imagine a page with only 450 words would provide any worth wild content that would be useful to anyone.

Stop writing content just to create new pages and fill in space, write content to actually be useful to your web visitors, stop worrying about what search engines think and gear towards visitors.

Simple Formulas: Time + Effort = Results

 

There is no perfect number of words anymore. Experts used to say 250-300 words, but the most important thing is that the pages are written for users, with keyword variations written into the copy where it makes sense and appears natural. The main thing to keep in mind is that humans have to feel like linking to your page, and links are extremely important. It does have to be on topic though. The most important on-page factor is unique, on-target title tag, so make it a good one. SEO involves a balance of relevance and authority, content being what makes it relevant or not, and inbound links determining the authority of your page.

 

What experts were these?

 

I partialy disaggree with you. You say just do good text and provide value for readers. Yes, I will do that. But I can give 3 valuable sentences for readers, but it obviously won't help me in search engines. That simply won't be enough.

 

If you can only come up with 3 valuable sentances for a specific topic maybe you should choose another. If you took any english or writing classes in college you would understand completely what I'm trying to say. Content can not be judge by it's length, but by it's quality.

You can take my information however you want, but one think you need to realize is that the quality of the content is what is important, not the length.

 

First of all no need trying insult me. I can read and understand what you say 100%.

Second: what i said stands and I am right. There IS a minimum or recommended amount of words. Like I said 3 sentences or 50 words will not be enough. I am asking what amount of words is enough. Another person replied 250-300 words and that makes sense and that is what I am asking. If you do not know, no need to answer.

 

I gave you the correct answer, you just choose to find another that suits your situation and needs better. No one that actually writes quality content is worried about "how many words they used" that is non-sense.

Show me one official source or cite by a Google or ex-Google employee stating there is a minimum amount of content needed to rank in search engines, in fact you can counter this arguement by simply point out all the sites without almost 0 content and still rank for top competitive keywords.

So, maybe someone will come to this thread and give you a random number to satisfy your need to believe you need a certain number of words in your content, good luck with that.

* Watches the mis-information train leave the station once again.

Simple Formula: Time + Effort = Results

 

No need for google employee to state that. Those numbers are brought up by webmaster experience.
I can build a valuable website with 1000 words and I can build a valuable website with 2000 words. But if 1000 words is enough for search engines I would rather spend that time building 2 quality content rich websites with 1000 words each than build 1 website with 2000 words. Why? Because 2 quality websites will earn me much more money than 1 quality website.

 

Really? I've been building and maintaining websites since I was 11, over 13 years of experience and I've yet to meet another webmaster who is experienced and has proven results and success with monitization of a website state a specific word count per web page.

See, there you go again aiming to please search engines and not human visitors, this is where you will fail. You must provide your content to please your visitors and naturally that will please search engines.

You can take this information with a grain a salt as you are, but you miss the valuable information I'm providing you. You seem to be all about "earning revenue" and most sites that start out with that goal will fail.

The best monitized sites are the ones who started out no making money at all and just provided useful, valid, quality content. With that follows "natural" one-way backlinks, which are the best you can get since it's people directly linking to your site based on its content.

 

Do you know that google loves up to 2% keyword density and yahoo loves up to 5%? Did any google or yahoo employee told this? No, it was brought up by webmaster experience.
How do I know that 50 words is not enough to rank well? Did google employee told me that? No?
So if you do not have that experience does not mean that nobody has.

I do not miss your point, I fully understand you, the problem is that its not what I am asking.

 

Oh really? You do realize that most SEO Consultants and Webmasters who have a grasp on the field call keyword density useless? Keyword density is again another method used to aim more towards search engines than actual human visitors. (again point in noted)

When you "naturally" write free flowing content keywords, keyword phrases and such will naturally appear, you don't put a "specific" percentage into your document to make it rank any better than lets say a page using 3% more than you. MSN\Live is the only major search engine that puts big value into on-page optimization and might use keyword density as a factor. If keyword density was a factor it could "easily" be gamed and provide irrelevant results, hence the fact thats why there is no "specific" density search engines look for. You really need to re-evaluate where you get your information and how you spread it back out into the wild.

What this below? An article by Google's Matt Cutts on writing useful articles? Maybe you should review that.

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/seo-advice-writing-useful-articles-that-readers-will-love/

 

I am not going to discuss that with you because its not the point of the thread and we do not need more offtopic here than we already have. What I wanted to say is that you do not need to speak to google employee to know whats better for search engine

 

http://www.stevepavlina.com

he uses over 2000 words in his articles , still he earns millions so shit what the "experts" say.

 

2,000 per article sounds reasonable, since its bound to contain a lot of information. Good point

+REP

 

Too many to name. That used to be the standard line by SEO experts even as late as 2005 in some cases, even speakers at SES and other conferences. I never completely subscribed to that though, because I feel it's more important to make the page as long as it needs to be for the topic.

Very true. Keyword density is useless. It does help to have the keyword in the title tag, and appear a minimum of 3 times on the page. Beyond that, just write a page relevant for the users.

 

I think to rank well, it depends on the competition. I could rank well for the phrase "vegetarian chile recipes" with a well optimized page having 200 - 500 words, however I could not rank well for "mortgage interest rates" with 1 million words on it. It really depends on the competition and your SEO on-page and off page optimization. But, I personally prefer to have a minimum of 200 words per page just for spider food. I could go on and on about good quality content (users share and post links too), but to rank well in competition you'd better have a better site than the other top competitors, including amount of content and quality of content. Just my 2 cents...

 

Pretty much what I think.

+REP

Also do you prefer having one pag site or do you make it few page site?

 

Multiple Pages, the best way to go. What is the topic of the site, I'll try to give an "idea" of how many pages you could use by topical break down.

 

I don't believe this was ever geared towards Google, this was always more towards Yahoo! & MSN who give big weight (or use to) towards on-page optimization, but do to abuse things have changed. I wouldn't say late 2005, the last I recall anyone worth wild of saying it was pre-2000 before Yahoo! started using Google search technology. (Which they don't anyome as of 2004).