I thought this article was very interesting. It's by a blogger who tested long posts vs short ones, and found the longer posts did much better:
http://www.quicksprout.com/2012/12/20/t … ersions/#.
(note: there's a popup that comes up - I just closed it and it went away).
i am not good at writing long hubs, 700 words is the most i could get, 1200 will be difficult
That is interesting, and good to note.
On a different angle, its interesting in light of the fact that the people searching all the content, are likely to want to read shorter, more concise things, or so I would think? Just thinking out loud here, but I can't help but wonder if they would see a long blog or article and move on to more concise things instead, because people are impatient and want quick answers? I don't know....
I do know that it seems like the longer the better in general, that I have found. In terms of what just does better. Thanks for sharing that.
Very interesting article. It is very true. As the article says Content is King I've checked and rechecked this and the longer articles will always produce more traffic from the search engines and will always produce more sales. I have been going back and making sure that all my Hub Pages are 1200 or more words and no I don't use fluff. I write on topic text that is going to draw people in and keep them on the Hub Page or with my Blogs on the Blog Post. I can look at my statistics on my Blog Posts and the longer blog posts always produce better.
I have started shooting my own photos and videos and I am in the process of setting up my own video and photo production company.
We have created and are testing videos for making money on You Tube and the results are great.
If anyone wants to know the contents of a great Hub Page that is going to make money is.
1. Over 1200 words of on topic text.
2. Photos that are on topic.
3. Videos that are on topic.
4. Polls, Call Outs, And Other Things that encourage people to interact with the Hub Page. And stay on the Hub Page.
I have been testing turning Hub Pages into mini authority sites and I'm getting good to great results with that. I have some that have 5000 to 7500 words of on topic text, photos, videos, and etc. Some of these are getting from a few hundred views a day to a few thousand views a day.
That tells me that Content is King and it does produce great results if you stick to it and keep building more and more of them.
Interesting and obviously you've put a lot of thought and time into producing your content. This makes me think of a great article I read today about content marketing.
The keys covered can be applied to the kind of hubs we publish on our subdomains, being intentional about our content and SEO goals. He (Rand Fishkin) talks about the consideration phase type content, discovery phase content and viral/super- broad. If you're a fan of Whiteboard Friday's, this is one of the best I've seen in a while. Be Intentional about Your Content and SEO Goals or Face Certain Failure. It's very much worth watching the video plus there's a transcript.
I'm off to take a look at some of these hubs you're referencing.
CHG, can you give us a title? You have over 1000 hubs.
You have really done your job on which content would do better. Thanks for sharing. I had been shortening many of my articles thinking that many online readers just scan the page but it looks like your research is saying otherwise.
I have always felt that longer hubs do better because the more wordage the more keywords! Google has stated that any hub less than 1500 words does not have enough information, and while I feel they are correct, I also know that some articles simply cannot attain that goal. I mean, how much can you write about owning and using an RV refrigerator?
I do what I can to write long and eliminate fluff, but it is not an easy task because I'm a talker. I could write forever, but to produce "meat" for people to consume is tricky.
I'm glad you wrote this post, though...now I may have to take some of my posts and join them to make them longer and more informative.
it means that Google do not has the right idea about long and short hubs. long hubs can be created with 4-5 articles combine with a hub. Google should give the equal importance to one long article and short articles and not fitting the soft ware who prefer long single long articles.
Yes, I was also thinking that. I have already shortened some articles.
I do get annoyed with articles (not necessarily on HP) in which the author takes maybe 100 words where ten would convey the same information. I see this on blogs a lot, I think. I do sometimes just skim, because of that.
OK. Well then I won't shorten some of my hubs like I was planning to. It would detract from the main point anyway.
i think that if one hub article will be long it will reduce the interest of the reader. it will definitely has repeated material that will make irritation. but short hub articles to creates 3 or 4 articles will be short and tell and clear the logic what we want to say and do not create any confusion in readers mind. short things what i think is prefer by the readers and also give an idea to think over. many logic's combined in a one article can confuse the concentration of the author as well as the visitors and do not give the best results as in a short article
Thank you for sharing your experiences here. It is appreciated!
For me, many of my long posts do well. The others, well it means I need to do more research to lengthen them. Lucky for me, the research is my favorite part!
yes-you can think it right but if long posts are doing well it may be your better way to advertise the hub. i think that if there will be short post they can do more better.
I find it interesting, because I've always felt longer Hubs do better, but I've always thought blog posts were supposed to be shorter - and if I move a Hub to my blog, I usually split it up into two or three posts deliberately.
Looks like I need to rethink!!
A very long time ago I bought a book on Direct Marketing.
It argued that the most effective marketing involves lots of text - which has to be well structured and involves calls to action at appropriate points.
Some people think that the digital age has changed all this and now people only want short snappy sites - and all of us who used to be on Squidoo know exactly what Google thought of that particular idea......
All I know from writing my blog is that long posts don't frighten people. Quite the contrary - they attract the people who most want to read content on which you are an authority.
I agree that longer posts are better. Here's why.
1. It thoroughly answers my questions. I usually have more than one, and if one article can answer all my questions about the topic, I don't have to keep searching elsewhere for the next question.
2. It adds information I may not have considered. I may not have been looking for the history of something, but it is additional information that may be helpful if I go on a game show or play board games. Plus I feel smarter. I may have been looking for how to do something, but may not have thought about a different way of doing it or drawbacks or side effects, etc.
3. When I read articles like this, I think of this person as an expert. You can tell for sure that they know a lot about the subject to include stuff I hadn't thought about.
4. And as has been mentioned, there is more room for more keywords.
50% of HP traffic is from mobile devices. Mobile users do not like long articles - they want their answers delivered succinctly. Many of the articles with highest traffic on HP are relatively short. It really depends on the topic. The key is to provide what users want - nothing more, nothing less. Loading verbose text and stuffing with unwanted capsules lowers readers satisfaction.
Read the linked to article...his stats are pretty convincing.
Those articles do not have the highest traffic on HP.
How do you find out how much traffic somebody else's hub has? I have never seen this info anywhere.
You can't, but the links are the only advice on HP about the best performing hubs.
No, they do not provide any information about which hubs are performing the best, and you are encouraging copy-cats by posting this false information.
You can tell how long someone has been on the site and look at total views, look at a sampling of articles for length. However, CHG may have a good niche or good longtail keywords which need to be taken into consideration. Reading articles helps as Marisa and others suggest. We need all the ideas we can get.
"Hot" and "Best" are not the hubs getting the most traffic on HP. For various reasons, HP would not make it so obvious which hubs are getting the most hits. Posting links to these lists and implying that they are high traffic encourages copy-cats.
I have to agree with that and I was going to make the same point earlier. Some of my articles with the most traffic are between 700 and 800 words.
Verbose text and irritating stuffing of irrelevant information is not what I was recommending. I agree that you have to be careful what you add and make sure that it will help rather than bother the reader.
This is probably sacrilege but I suggest that a page should leave a reader hungry for more. A fully satiated reader will will never click and ad or another page that provides additional information. This requires as lot of skill, but is the key to success in terms of earnings. It requires balance and careful design to avoid tricking or frustrating a reader. One again it depends on what the page is designed to do and the audience.
I remember reading about that when I first started. I think it is true that you want them yearning for more, but it is not more information that they should need. If I write a how to, and they are now yearning to make the thing I am describing, then they can click on my Amazon ads to buy the materials they need.
If you leave them yearning for more information, they may start clicking on the back button and back to Google.
Yep! I agree!
As a kid, I haunted the craft section of my local library. This was back when neither the internet nor Amazon existed.
I read books on every subject from making Faberge eggs to quilling, quilting, soap making, candle making and more. I saved up my (rather measly) allowance to purchase craft supplies.
A good crafts article should make me desire to run screaming for the materials I need.
Articles that are not craft based should still leave me wanting to take some sort of action in my life.
And yes, not giving me enough info will just send me back into search mode.If your article doesn't provide me with enough material and understanding, I'll hit "back" and find another article that does.
I've found a lot of skimpy articles on HP that leave me wanting more, but unconvinced that the author has enough knowledge to satisfy me.
LOL I tend to write articles that average about 2000-5000 words. And that's what I want to read. I want meat!
That used to be a method that many online marketers used, but from all that I've read post Panda, search engines are looking for quality content that best answers a search query fully with no need to click the back button. The ads served aren't necessarily going to match the content. The more questions a page can answer completely, the better chance it has to rank well and be the kind of content that is shared. It seems more likely that a viewer who wants more information on the same topic will look for related content by the same author by following links. I wouldn't share a page that didn't fully answer my search.
I think the key is what you just said...it depends on the topic and the interest people have in reading it. I am currently analyzing my hubs on a spreadsheet to see if wordage really makes a difference, but after looking at about 1/3 of them, even taking topics into consideration, I am not seeing that it makes that much of a difference. The fellow who wrote that article may have been getting his figures from just one niche or two of writing, but those numbers may not and probably do not apply elsewhere.
Either way, I think it's a good idea to do some analysis, tedious as it is, to see just what your articles are producing and then transfer those figures into dollar amounts so you know the value of each article. I am getting some unexpected results doing that...but you have to remember also that Panda has made a big difference for many in how numbers look these days.
The bottom line is that I think it is very difficult to gauge these things. You can do everything you are advised to do and still get poor numbers due to competition, lack of interest or whatever. It really sucks, doesn't it?
I can't think of a better incentive to take content elsewhere if those are really the "hot" and "best" sites on HubPages.
Maybe Google has a point about article sites.........
I agree that length of article is also important as well as content. But, I am of the view that an article means that which does not go more than two pages or at the most it should not be more than 1300 words. Otherwise, the readers may get tired or disturbed in continuing the reading. Article reading is not the kind of lazy reading that is associated with stories and novels. Here, a reader wants information and that too within short span of time. Most of us can not contribute more than 5 to 10 minutes on one point as we are always busy and restless.
So, a good article should be around 900 to 1200 words with relevant photos and videos if it is dealing with good content.
To paraphrase Google's John Mueller: "It is about the quality of the content, not the length of the content. In most cases, quality is better than quantity. Our algorithms explicitly try to find and recommend websites that provide content that's of high quality, unique, and compelling to users."
what i want to say is that the high quality,uniqueness and compelling users articles can not remain in long articles as compare to short ones. short article do not bore and very less possibilities of repeated words.but give every things to the users and easily strike them and our short articles can say more as compare to long ones and every word is suitably fit and arrange that give pleasure to readers to understand well.
That sounds good, but when was it written? Recently I read that Google does not consider articles less than 1500 words to have enough content to be authoritative. Now, if you can have articles of that length AND have them be of good quality, that would be the ideal...and that is what I think Google would like to see. However, I do note that many shorter articles get good views, so Google must be ranking them well due to their quality. I will also add that some topics simply do not lend themselves to having great length. So, what Google wants and what they will realistically get is a big question, isn't it?
It was written on May10 2014, so it is recent. Here's the link https://productforums.google.com/forum/ … discussion
On the same thread this:
Q: if write short length content may i penalize in future. i need straight forward answer.
A: If you write low-quality content (short or long), then yes, our algorithms and even our manual webspam team may [b}choose not to trust your website[/b].
Q: if any low quality pages in website affect the whole website or not? source panda update.
A: Yes. If the overall quality of your website is low, then that's going to be reflected.
Q: not all website have short content but some pages. also i update it once a year or more frequently as possible.
A: Update frequency isn't what matters, your website just needs to be fantastic overall.
This comment by someone else is also useful to the debate about how best to improve the overall quality and ranking of HP.
"Google now gives attention and importance to the site as a whole.
The site as whole includes all pages on the site- not only the "good" pages,
If you have a lot of very poor pages, that will tend to reduce Google's evaluation of the site as a whole.
You can think of it like this:
1. If you visit a restaurant which has ten items on the menu and one of them is excellent, three are good and the rest are very poor, how would you rate that restaurant?
2. An individual customer who always chooses the excellent item, would rate it very highly.
3. But a restaurant inspector or critic for a food magazine might assess ALL the items/aspects and give a lower OVERALL rating to the restaurant."
Answer to question number one does not really answer it.
Answer number two refers to an entire website...so in the case of writing for HP, are they referring to your own work by itself in its own subdomain or your own work as part of the entire site. If it is considered to be the second, no matter how well you write, it will not matter. Google has not clarified its position here as far as I know.
Answer to number three is a bit strange because updating is one way we improve our articles. The answer still does not address the issue of short articles. Short does not necessarily reflect low quality.
I am not sure the information here is that useful for purposes of this discussion.
My biggest concern is what I stated earlier...I hate the thought of working my butt off to create good articles and feeling that the low quality, spammy articles here will keep me from doing well. If anybody can respond to that specifically in terms of what Google says about it, I'd be happy to hear it. What they have said in your quotes here refers to "whole website"...not to subdomains within a website... there is a big difference in those two things.
I think the restaurant analogy is a good one. Subdomains could perhaps be considered as 'Seafood' or 'Vegetarian' parts of the menu. Poor quality overall, will still taint all ratings for all menu items and categories, though some Subdomains will do better than others.
So are you saying that you think all of us here are dependent on the total quality of the entire HP site?
Yes I am, and this is what Google has consistently said - including the above quotes. Google ranks pages and that rank depends in part on the authority and 'quality' of both the subdomain and host domain. I'll get some quotes if you like.
Yes, I'd like to see them. What I do not understand is, that if what you are saying is true, how is it that some people who write here on HP are still doing well, while others , like me who write quality posts and were doing well until mid August, are now foundering? I don't get it. If the entire site loses ranking and this affects everybody here, then how are some able to overcome this issue. By the way, if you look at my Hubber scores, they are always high...as are CPMs....but views are still 90% below what they were...and this happened one month before ANY changes took place here, so I can't even blame Panda, etc. I'm interested to know your thoughts as I have been working very hard to recover.
That's if you think "Seafood" or "Vegetarian" are bad things.
"Update frequency isn't what matters, your website just needs to be fantastic overall."
That statement seems very important, to me. It is often repeated that writers should constantly update their articles and I've never thought that sounded right. Your stuff is good or not.
Had to bookmark that one. I think that Google thread says a lot about what an online writer needs to do. Quality not quantity, that's the entire message; and what I thought to be the case.
i think that many times Google has changed their methods. nothing is fix in the world but right things have to be implemented sooner or later. if we believe that short articles has more strength than longer ones and we think that is why poetry more better way to express ourselves due to their short contents. if we have short articles with good quality and without repeated things it may become poetry like to convey their messages.
Personally, when I write an article, I make it as long as it has to be. If it is a simple topic and answering a question that can be answered in a few words, I will use a few words. If the question is more broad, then more words will be needed to answer it.
But then again, I know nothing about what Google wants.
What Google SAYS and what its algorithm actually DOES are rarely the same thing, as far as I can see.
Not sure how this statement gets us anywhere.
But I agree with it. I've seen it in my searches.
What I'm saying is that I tend to rely more on actual research and testing done by experienced webmasters, than on pronouncements made by Google.
That just *feels* right when I read the quote.
(maybe a DNA thing)
I do tend to get wordier as time goes by. There has to be a stopping point.
It all depends on the subject and the quality of the writing - and, most importantly, the ability of the writer to understand how to write online for comprehension and scan reading.
I've seen very many "short" articles with:
* very poor english
* very poor use of titles and subtitles
* long paragraphs
* long and unnecessarily complex sentences
* complete absence of bullet points when their use would be appropriate
It's perfectly possible to write both long and short articles that attract traffic - but only if they are knowledgeable, well structured, well written - for online readership (these are not print articles!) and remain 'on topic'.
You cannot compare length of article when the calibre of the author and the nature of the topic are very different.
However individual authors can check out :
* their article about a topic against other articles on the same topic by other authors which rank higher in Google
* their articles on the same topic on equivalent sites (eg blogs) - if they are a different length.
I've got a vast mount of data about the popularity of my blog topics - over years - and I'm sticking with longer articles.
I read a lot of quilting blogs, and the popular authors always write longer posts. They have time to be welcoming, add information that will please a larger number of people. Most of them add a variety of things. Want to know a little bit about her personal life? It's in there. Want some quilting tip or trick? It's in there. Want to know when she is traveling to your part of town? It's in there. Want to know when her next book is coming out and what it will be about. There's a hint or two in there. Want to see some pretty quilts? Lots of them are in there. Want to know the newest trends? You know about her personality, you feel welcome.
The shorter blog posts seem like someone is just going through the motions just to make a post. Sometimes they say or show something interesting, but more often than not, they don't.
We've studied length of hubs numerous times. There's a correlation between Hub length and traffic. The goals in the Hubtool try and convey this. 1200 - 1400 words is the sweet spot. Then there are diminishing returns for additional words.
I've thought about this a lot and feel the best strategy may be to write a really good Hub that is 700 - 800 words and see if it catches on. Once it's getting some traction, really build it out. I also think building out the best Hubs in your portfolio can be really fruitful.
On the subdomains vs the entire site. I think things have changed a few times. With Panda 4.1 we saw most subdomains decrease. This is pretty different than the last several panda updates where some go up and others go down (more split). Google says they didn't change how subdomains were treated, and maybe they didn't, but I feel like something did change.
We have a pretty good plan we are working on to improve the quality as a whole. You'll see some more of the quality efforts very soon!
Thanks for stopping by, Paul. For many here the drop in views has been very disheartening, so we need all of the guidance we can get. I currently am working on analyzing every article to see how the numbers are working in terms of word quantity. So far, I'm not seeing much difference between amounts, but I have very few hubs that go below 900 and only a few that are 2500 or more. Yesterday I deleted two hubs and combined them with more content to see what would happen. No exciting news on this yet. As I posted earlier, some subjects only have limited amounts of information you can give, so you do the best you can.
I do hope your quality game plan gets rid of the worst articles here as I feel they really may be hurting the site. Will wait to see what you do and am hoping you do it pretty soon.
Hi Paul. Why has there been no increase in traffic despite the addition of 100K of pages from Squidoo? http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126677 . Is this traffic 'dilution' with the same traffic spread over vastly more pages (traffic throttling), the cause of the universal loss of traffic rather than Panda? It could explain the different impact on Subdomains this time. Do you expect a rise in traffic shortly, or will it depend on the next Panda Update? Thanks and Cheers
If this is going to become a site of 700-800 word hubs then it's time to stop fixing my ex-Squidoo lenses and to start transferring the content elsewhere - probably to blogs
The beginning of the end at Squidoo was when they encouraged people to write shorter lenses.
Those who continue to do well with their ex-Squidoo content are those with expertise in specific niches who are switching chunky content to blogs and breaking it up into topics for shorter blog posts and pages for basic reference material.
Time to start looking at more blogging methinks..... At least that's an area of social media I am an expert in and my traffic is holding up!
I'm now starting to rethink that strategy (not the moving to a blog, but the breaking up of chunky content).
That research (in my opening post) indicates that longer posts work everywhere - he wasn't referring to a writing site. That suggests my habit of breaking an article up into short posts for my blog is wrong. I'd be better off sticking with the long form. What do you think?
Well if I move my content to blogs I'd be breaking up very long hubs into long blog posts!
I still favour long - I really do not care two hoots what anybody else says - because I've been writing very long blog posts for nine years and continue to see ever increasing traffic. I'm basing my view on experience and an awful lot of statistics!
Now and again you can hit on a good topic and your traffic will go viral for a while - but there's no way of knowing what these will be until they happen.
The point is that it is the quality of the content AND the weight of quality content on a site which maintains traffic. It only needs to be accessible.
I've seen very short articles which are impenetrable and very long articles and blog posts which are well structured and well signposted and well written - and they aren't any sort of problem to read.
Bottom line - I'm really not in the least bit interested in writing for people with an extremely short attention span!
What about writing for people who just don't have enough time to read something long and involved, but still want to know a little?
The point is that you have two jobs to do when you write: one, to please your readers and two, to please Google.
If you can't persuade Google to rank your Hub, then you'll get no readers to please! So that has to be goal number one - and what that research is saying is what Paul Edmonson has been saying, that longer articles do better on Google.
Okay, I see what you mean there.
That is important to keep in mind. Thanks.
I was just thinking of some of my fellow bloggers (not on HP!) who just drone on and on, without much information.
Didn't Paul recently say we could try writing 700 word hubs and then add material as needed later if the hub did not do well. It may be all trial and error. I do agree that 1200 words on mobile may be too much, but all ideas in this thread are enlightening.
I think he was suggesting that you could start by writing a shorter Hub to test the water, because there's no point putting hours into creating a "stellar Hub" if you find it's not being searched for.
However for me, the downside of that is that people may write a 700 word Hub then tack on 500 words of padding. If I've got an idea for a Hub, I'd much rather get it all done right in the first place.
In 2013, Goodreads did a survey and found that 37% of members read BOOKS on their mobiles
I really do think people underestimate the ability of people to read on a mobile device. There's people who like reading and then there's people who don't. From what I can see the latter don't like read anything too long no matter where it is - newspaper, website, blog post, article, whatever. Since my hubs often promote books they really aren't the sort of audience I'm after!
Thank you for your input Paul.
While I can see how your strategy of writing 700-800 words and building up to 1200-1400 if the hub takes up can work, I personally don't think it will work for me. First of all, most of the work is done in researching and planning stage. The words are the easy part for me. So if I write a little bit, I will have to do a lot of work to gear up (more research and planning) and write the remaining words. Also, if a hub is really doing well, it will be scary for me to change it so substantially. What if traffic dies down with the change?
Also, if 1200-1400 is the sweet spot, why write a shorter hub that is less likely to catch on? It is obviously missing something that the additional words will help. And how to decide what to leave out? That seems harder for me than writing the extra words from the start.
It makes more sense to me to write a full-length high-quality hub from the beginning.
It is true. Changing a 700-800 word hub to a lengthy one is tough and it may not fit rightly into a stellar hub. Better start from the beginning itself and build a1200-1300 word hub with lesser efforts. There is no sense in changing a hub which already attracts traffic simply to make it lengthy.
I was thinking a lot about this point about the "shorter" Hubs already doing well and that it could be a problem adding to them. On some of my Hubs, some are low as about 550 words, others go up to almost 800, but they rank well in the SERPs and get good traffic. They are thorough but not too wordy and I doubt a visitor wants to read a lengthy article just to get to the point. I'd be very, very worried about adding to those articles and changing them. And, as you said, I did considerable research for those articles. The articles I'm talking about, on a different account, incredibly outperform all of my longer articles.
I agree with a point made by someone awhile back on a different thread: Some articles are better with less words, others with more words. And I also agree with the point that getting to the point with fewer words is often superior than getting there with too many words (obviously). I also have articles on some of my own blogs that are even shorter than the ones I mentioned above and they get a lot of traffic daily.
I think it really still depends on what people are looking for, whether the topic is very specific to a certain audience, etc.
Barbara: You summed it up brilliantly. I say what I need to say in as few words as possible. The younger generation doesn't have the attention span to read 1200 words
I agree and anymore I don't have the attention span either. I read so much on the web that I had better get my information fast or onto something else I go.
Well that may well be true - but doesn't it rather depend on whether or not you are targeting the younger generation as to whether or not it is relevant?
In my view the real readers are the older age groups - they're the ones who will enhance your "average length of stay on a page" statistic!
How in the name of sanity can 1200 words work on a mobile phone? It makes no sense.
I frequently find top-ranked results with just a few words and a picture.
Look at any major site like Google for example and their pages get ever more clean and empty. Less words. Easier information.
Whatever. Bored with all this crap.
No need to get uppity, though? :-)
I suppose. Having read the same thing over and over I find my patience stretching. Now back to work.
Yes, I'm not so certain a longer article is always best and I think often a shorter article is better. I'm not too certain regimenting writing here is a good solution. On one of my own sites I have articles that get quite a bit of traffic and they're not even 500 words long. It has more to do with what people are looking for and if you give it to them.
Ah, but that's on your own site and I assume all the articles are on the same subject? That makes a difference, because you have many more relevant keywords on your site as a whole.
Yes, that's correct. But I do have articles on another HP account that are between 500 and 800 words long and have been on the first page of the SERPs since a few months after I published them. One of them used to get about 500 views a day, the others a few hundred a day; all of them still get over a hundred views a day on average. They are well-detailed articles, covering all the bases and took considerable research to put together. I think those are the deciding factors, mostly: Also, that they're about things people are looking for and are well-written and easy to read.
I take it you don't read any of the lengthier articles in the broadsheet newspapers on a mobile device?
Each to his own.
You have people who like and respond to pictures and you have people who like and respond to words
They're different people - which is why it's really silly to behave as if there is a "one size fits all" world when it comes to how many words a hub should have.
I read masses on my mobile - and I'm writing for people like me.
Length is okay but content quality is also important. A very engaging presentation also keeps me on the page, otherwise, I leave. I keep editing my hubs to shorten some of the really long ones that may have gone off somewhere at one point. I am not finished yet but I try to also add more relevant and useful information.
I think it depends on how focused a page is. If it's focused and answer what the searcher came to find out, they'll read all of it. If it's padded with waffle, they won't. better to have a short focused page than a long waffly page.
Also - if you give people too much choice they end up buying nothing, so a medium sized page with a few choices works out better than a gigantic page with dozens of choices.
by Brian Leekley3 years ago
In their teachings on writing stellar hubs, the HubPages staff has sometimes said that an ideal hub is 1,500 words long and has sometimes said that an ideal hub is 1,150 words long. Numerous hubs by hubbers on hubbing...
by Mahaveer Sanglikar6 years ago
Does large Hubs attract more visitors than smaller ones?
by Marie Gail Stratford3 years ago
When I first started at HubPages, I wrote several Hubs of around 800 to 900 words. Now the goals for creating quality Hubs include 1250 or more words of content. I've noticed that some Hubbers seem to be padding their...
by SpaceShanty2 years ago
I have been spending some time on Blackhat forums and websites and am thinking about creating a Hub about it. Purely for information/interest purposes and to educate Hubbers here to the tactics used by scammers...
by Paul Edmondson10 days ago
In a very limited release (2 articles, that will expand to dozens in the next month or so) we are testing a new feature and process called Expert Reviews. Our strategy is to satisfy Google and readers with...
by Marisa Wright8 years ago
I notice several disgruntled Hubbers on Eric's new Hub, saying they're leaving HubPages because of the duplicate content flags.They seem to be misunderstanding what the dup content flag is all about - either they think...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.