I saw a thread that debated the merits of having the whole post displayed on the first page vs. splitting the post with a read more option. I can't find the thread now. Either I saw it somewhere else or I'm not using the right search terms. Anyway, I'd appreciate some feedback (or a link) about splitting a post or keeping it all together. Does one seem to be more popular with your readers? Thanks, Kay
I have always prefer the whole post listed. I hate read more and when I read other blogs, I often do not follow them. I have not seen any convincing research either way so I go with what I like when I check out others. I believe for people to want to follow the link, the article better have had a great opening that makes it worth clicking it.
Mostly all the Hosted Blogs are using expnad posts. I dont think there are disadvantages of it, I love to use it. If so there are disadvantages i would also love to see the feedback to this post.
I would always prefer giving the full post right away rather than the READ MORE or EXPAND kind of posts.
For link building purposes, I'd like to see the whole post, or at least the links I want to be seen, above the "read more" area. I'm not sure if the portion of the post after the "read more" is still considered to be part of the home page. Or not. And that's an interesting debate, as you want your purchased links to be on the home page for as long as possible. If anyone wants to pipe up on that, please do! For reading purposes, I prefer choosing the read more option. If I like how the excerpt looks, I'll read more. If not... next. Also, an FYI on reading purposes: it's said if you do not split up a long a post into several pages and use bolded headers and lists, a person quickly loses interest and only scans instead of really reading what you have to say. Generally, 600-1000 words is plenty. After that, unless it's really interesting, you'll lose people's interest. Food for thought.