jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (11 posts)

Stick To The Facts Jack: Question On Proper Hub Length

  1. Jesse Drzal profile image83
    Jesse Drzalposted 10 months ago

    It seems some of my newer hubs are going to level out somewhere between the 950 to 1000 word count. I am I hurting my odds for gaining future traffic because of the 1250 recommended word count? I just feel on a few of them I reached the point I want to convey, without filler personal opinions, stories etc and sticking with straight info. Do articles receive more traffic via these word counts only? Thanks, everyone and I hope you all have a great New Years!

    1. calculus-geometry profile image87
      calculus-geometryposted 10 months ago in reply to this

      If you are writing on something that you have expertise in it should be no trouble to make about 900 words without resorting to filler.

      What affects traffic more is choice of topic.  Topics that the web is already saturated with just aren't going to succeed as hubs no matter how long they are, unless you write a 20,000 word Wikipedia-like article.

      When you have an idea for a hub, Google the topic (and its alternative wordings) to see how many other pages come up as exact or close matches.  It will help you form realistic traffic expectations, but you don't have to let it discourage you from writing about a topic you really care about.

  2. psycheskinner profile image83
    psycheskinnerposted 10 months ago

    I have hubs with less than 300 words that do just fine (featured, getting traffic).

    Longer hubs offer more content and more chances to hook and hold a reader.  But some topics suit a shorter treatment.  Length per se is not the most important thing to consider.

  3. Marisa Wright profile image91
    Marisa Wrightposted 10 months ago

    The 1250 length isn't a magic number, it's just a guideline.

    Years ago, one of our top Hubbers did some research and she found that her Hubs did best when they were between 800 and 1,500 words.  So that's what I always aim for.

  4. Jesse Drzal profile image83
    Jesse Drzalposted 10 months ago

    I am thinking more along the lines of search engine priority, as in does an article have a higher standing and priority simply on a higher word count, and not based on content. For instance, an author has possibly 600-1000 words of real content but stuff in hundreds of words of filler and fluff for high word counts, or does the shorter, more concise article have the same merit. Hope this makes sense. Thanks.

    1. Marisa Wright profile image91
      Marisa Wrightposted 10 months ago in reply to this

      Yes it does make sense, good question.

      Most of Google's assessment is automated, not human.  Machines are obviously limited in how well they can judge quality and relevance:  but they can check spelling and grammar easily, and they can judge relevance by looking at how often relevant words (referred to as "keywords") are used in the text. 

      We've known about keywords for a long time, and at one point that led to people "keyword-stuffing" - cramming as many keywords as possible into every article to impress Google, often at the expense of good readable English!   So now Google also checks whether there are too many keywords relative to the length of the article - and if there are, Google will discard the article from its results. 

      And this is where the longer article length comes in.  A long article allows you to include lots of  relevant keywords without "keyword-stuffing", which will impress Google and result in the article being ranked higher. 

      You might conclude from that, that the longer the better - but remember you are also considering your reader.  You want Google to rank your article well so the reader finds it - but once the reader arrives, it's up to you to KEEP that reader interested!  So you don't want to add waffle or padding - and research has shown that most online readers will stop reading before the 1,500 word mark, so it's good to try to keep your text under that limit.

  5. Jesse Drzal profile image83
    Jesse Drzalposted 10 months ago

    You must have replied as I was typing Marisa lol. I'm just not going to worry about it. Thanks for explaining too.

  6. FatFreddysCat profile image95
    FatFreddysCatposted 10 months ago

    I usually shoot for at least 1100 words, which isn't hard to do because I tend to be a long winded S.O.B. big_smile

  7. Jesse Drzal profile image83
    Jesse Drzalposted 10 months ago

    Thank you all again for the great feedback everyone.

  8. NateB11 profile image93
    NateB11posted 10 months ago

    Just wanted to confirm what others have said, that I've also written articles with lower word counts (than the 1250 suggested length) and those shorter articles have gotten a lot of traffic. Much of it has to do with if the subject (specifically keywords) is in demand on the Net and if you are doing a better job answering the query than others have. Also, an article that gives the search engine enough to work with is good. Which means to a great extent you just have to be skillful as a writer and use a variety of words that the crawlers can use to index your article and know what it's about and then the search engine can use all that to present the article in search engine results pages for people who are looking for that particular subject matter.

  9. Jesse Drzal profile image83
    Jesse Drzalposted 10 months ago

    Thank you, Nate