Comments on: Web page word counts: reading vs linking http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/word-count-reading-vs-linking/ Where to find Malcolm Coles, reviews, and tips on how to do things I couldn't do. Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:22:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Andy http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/word-count-reading-vs-linking/#comment-5671 Andy Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:06:32 +0000 http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/?p=3141#comment-5671 But remember, the longer your post, the easier it is to reach that all important OPKD (OnPageKeywordDensity) percentage ;) /sarcasm But remember, the longer your post, the easier it is to reach that all important OPKD (OnPageKeywordDensity) percentage

;)

/sarcasm

]]> By: Ian Miller http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/word-count-reading-vs-linking/#comment-5665 Ian Miller Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:22:51 +0000 http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/?p=3141#comment-5665 I'd make my own (neglected) blog post out of it, but it'd be too short :) I'd make my own (neglected) blog post out of it, but it'd be too short :)

]]> By: Malcolm Coles http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/word-count-reading-vs-linking/#comment-5664 Malcolm Coles Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:11:49 +0000 http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/?p=3141#comment-5664 I may take your comment, roll it up, and hit anyone over the head who ever tries to tell me 450 words (or however many) is the ideal length for SEO / usability / whatever. Well-written and edited articles should be as long as they need to be. Full stop. I may take your comment, roll it up, and hit anyone over the head who ever tries to tell me 450 words (or however many) is the ideal length for SEO / usability / whatever.

Well-written and edited articles should be as long as they need to be. Full stop.

]]> By: Ian Miller http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/word-count-reading-vs-linking/#comment-5662 Ian Miller Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:07:09 +0000 http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/?p=3141#comment-5662 I agree, I don't think the two things are mutually exclusive, in fact possible support each other. A long post will have a higher proportion of "drop outs", people who skim read posts and think they wont bother with the detail. However, buy making posts longer the chances of giving out beneficial / linkable information actually increases, so of those that do get to the end, a much higher propotion of them chose to link. By using average reading time it masks those that do go all the way through vs those than drop out. The Nielsen graph would be much better showing total reading time against word count, then you'd see those that did find long content valuable. A 500 word posts might well be read through to the end by more people, but the chances of that providing link worthy content is (very often) reduced by the brevity. I agree, I don't think the two things are mutually exclusive, in fact possible support each other. A long post will have a higher proportion of "drop outs", people who skim read posts and think they wont bother with the detail. However, buy making posts longer the chances of giving out beneficial / linkable information actually increases, so of those that do get to the end, a much higher propotion of them chose to link.

By using average reading time it masks those that do go all the way through vs those than drop out. The Nielsen graph would be much better showing total reading time against word count, then you'd see those that did find long content valuable.

A 500 word posts might well be read through to the end by more people, but the chances of that providing link worthy content is (very often) reduced by the brevity.

]]>