>>>
And for me, the longest running, and ironically biggest issue ... is content length.
If someone searches for an answer,
to a closed question,
they are wanting a specific type of answer.
Typically short, simple (and accurate).
But G is biased against such content!
>>>
And for me, the longest running, and ironically biggest issue ... is content length.
If someone searches for an answer,
to a closed question,
they are wanting a specific type of answer.
Typically short, simple (and accurate).
But G is biased against such content!
>>>
>>>
No - "Longform" is not (technically) preferred.
No - G does not use the "count" of words on a page for positive ranking.
No - There is no "ideal length" for content.
But ...
Try getting a 300 word page that answers a question to rank.
Or a site full of them.
>>>
No - "Longform" is not (technically) preferred.
No - G does not use the "count" of words on a page for positive ranking.
No - There is no "ideal length" for content.
But ...
Try getting a 300 word page that answers a question to rank.
Or a site full of them.
>>>
>>>
For starters, you hit the "Thin" issue.
Content that appears to provide little value,
en-mass, looks spammy.
1 term, 1 page = G raising a robo-brow.
(Yes, yes, we know ... where's santa ... not propped by links or anything, is it!)
Then you have the weighting ...
>>>
For starters, you hit the "Thin" issue.
Content that appears to provide little value,
en-mass, looks spammy.
1 term, 1 page = G raising a robo-brow.
(Yes, yes, we know ... where's santa ... not propped by links or anything, is it!)
Then you have the weighting ...
>>>
>>>
Words help G "understand" a page.
(It aids in classifying the topic/domain, it's nature/intent, what queries it may be suited for, as well as actual scoring/ranking etc.)
More words (that matter/are relevant), the better.
So though "longer content" isn't a factor...
>>>
Words help G "understand" a page.
(It aids in classifying the topic/domain, it's nature/intent, what queries it may be suited for, as well as actual scoring/ranking etc.)
More words (that matter/are relevant), the better.
So though "longer content" isn't a factor...
>>>
>>>
... more words that pertain to the query (topic and nature), the better (to a degree).
The next issue is ... User desire vs Site desire.
We all use the internet.
We've all tried to look stuff up.
>>>
... more words that pertain to the query (topic and nature), the better (to a degree).
The next issue is ... User desire vs Site desire.
We all use the internet.
We've all tried to look stuff up.
>>>
>>>
We've likely all sat there going
"WTF, just give me the answer/method (recipe ;))"
etc.
From a users perspective,
we want the "value" of the page fast!
We don't want to wade through paragraphs of stuff that, at that time, we deem irrelevant.
>>>
We've likely all sat there going
"WTF, just give me the answer/method (recipe ;))"
etc.
From a users perspective,
we want the "value" of the page fast!
We don't want to wade through paragraphs of stuff that, at that time, we deem irrelevant.
>>>
>>>
From a site owners perspective,
we may want you on their longer (ad impressions),
or more chance to win you over (CRO) etc.
So there's a conflict there.
The reality is - failing to satisfy the user preference may harm you in the long run (aversion/avoidance).
>>>
From a site owners perspective,
we may want you on their longer (ad impressions),
or more chance to win you over (CRO) etc.
So there's a conflict there.
The reality is - failing to satisfy the user preference may harm you in the long run (aversion/avoidance).
>>>
>>>
But as per above, providing the user with incredibly brief content also plays against you (possible spam flag, likely lower topicality scoring etc.).
Fortunately for us ... it's not a new problem,
and it already has answers!
>>>
But as per above, providing the user with incredibly brief content also plays against you (possible spam flag, likely lower topicality scoring etc.).
Fortunately for us ... it's not a new problem,
and it already has answers!
>>>
>>>
The "inverted pyramid" is known for being used in journalism ... but it can also be seen else where (such as patents, research writeups etc.).
Provide most of the "value" (details) up front,
then lesser details in subsequent sections.
There are variants ...
>>>
The "inverted pyramid" is known for being used in journalism ... but it can also be seen else where (such as patents, research writeups etc.).
Provide most of the "value" (details) up front,
then lesser details in subsequent sections.
There are variants ...
>>>
>>>
... but the general principle is the same (just done in sections etc.).
For alternative content forms (that aren't linear or singular), you can go with a variant,
or in some cases use teasers etc.
But the key is "validation".
Your content must prove its worth!
>>>
... but the general principle is the same (just done in sections etc.).
For alternative content forms (that aren't linear or singular), you can go with a variant,
or in some cases use teasers etc.
But the key is "validation".
Your content must prove its worth!
>>>
>>>
This has to be done as early on as possible.
Confirm the topic/nature (title/heading).
Provide a fast and easily consumed prospectus (abstract/intro).
Use placement/styling to grab the readers attention.
(yes - these tend to play well with SEO and term weighting)
>>>
This has to be done as early on as possible.
Confirm the topic/nature (title/heading).
Provide a fast and easily consumed prospectus (abstract/intro).
Use placement/styling to grab the readers attention.
(yes - these tend to play well with SEO and term weighting)
>>>
>>>
Now, the upside is ... G got smart.
They seem to have realised that as well as forcing us all in to the Content Economy,
they had inadvertently caused a wave of "longformism",
which was leading to a % of searchers hitting pages,
and not liking gobs of text.
>>>
Now, the upside is ... G got smart.
They seem to have realised that as well as forcing us all in to the Content Economy,
they had inadvertently caused a wave of "longformism",
which was leading to a % of searchers hitting pages,
and not liking gobs of text.
>>>
>>>
So they worked in using Target Anchors
("#.something" in the URL)
Then they worked over Fragment Directives
(G's "scroll to text" via #:~:text=)
And then there was (is) paragraph indexing,
so G can score up parts of content.
(Fine mess you created there G!)
>>>
So they worked in using Target Anchors
("#.something" in the URL)
Then they worked over Fragment Directives
(G's "scroll to text" via #:~:text=)
And then there was (is) paragraph indexing,
so G can score up parts of content.
(Fine mess you created there G!)
>>>
>>>
So, though G do seem to prefer to see primary/main terms at the top of the page,
and secondary/associated terms further down the page,
you may still rank for lesser/lower terms.
But you have to consider the users.
>>>
So, though G do seem to prefer to see primary/main terms at the top of the page,
and secondary/associated terms further down the page,
you may still rank for lesser/lower terms.
But you have to consider the users.
>>>
>>>
Consumption has a cost!
It's their time and effort.
Your content must at least match that!
(Yeah - now think about that and time-to-read/word-count!)
So not only should every page serve 2 purposes
(one for the business, one for the user),
each part of the page should!
>>>
Consumption has a cost!
It's their time and effort.
Your content must at least match that!
(Yeah - now think about that and time-to-read/word-count!)
So not only should every page serve 2 purposes
(one for the business, one for the user),
each part of the page should!
>>>
>>>
Now, a "how to" and a "report on" and a "review of" are all technically different.
Even if they are all about "red sequined handbags",
the structure/flow should be different (as should the verbs/intent terms and additional/associated words).
>>>
Now, a "how to" and a "report on" and a "review of" are all technically different.
Even if they are all about "red sequined handbags",
the structure/flow should be different (as should the verbs/intent terms and additional/associated words).
>>>
>>>
But ... ask yourself,
what do they need to do to keep you reading them?
(Go on, imagine it - "how to" / "report on" / "review of" - what will make you return to SERP, what will keep you consuming?)
>>>
But ... ask yourself,
what do they need to do to keep you reading them?
(Go on, imagine it - "how to" / "report on" / "review of" - what will make you return to SERP, what will keep you consuming?)
>>>
>>>
(And no - it's not "attention span",
it's that the "captivation window" is often smaller/shorter, due to the ease of reach and lack of scarcity - hook them faster, or lose them!)
Make your content #ValueTopHeavy !
Confirm and Satisfy as quickly as you can.
>>>
(And no - it's not "attention span",
it's that the "captivation window" is often smaller/shorter, due to the ease of reach and lack of scarcity - hook them faster, or lose them!)
Make your content #ValueTopHeavy !
Confirm and Satisfy as quickly as you can.
>>>
>>>
Treat it like an "all you can eat".
You know the majority are wanting to get in, sit down and munch on popular choices.
Put those dishes near the front (top).
Then put the less popular (more time/effort) dishes further back, ideally in groups (spicy, sweet etc.).
>>>
Treat it like an "all you can eat".
You know the majority are wanting to get in, sit down and munch on popular choices.
Put those dishes near the front (top).
Then put the less popular (more time/effort) dishes further back, ideally in groups (spicy, sweet etc.).
>>>
>>>
Basic value up front,
deeper value further down,
possibly in sub-sections,
potentially internal links to deeper versions, or tangents.
All of this,
just because G doesn't want short, simple content.
Basic value up front,
deeper value further down,
possibly in sub-sections,
potentially internal links to deeper versions, or tangents.
All of this,
just because G doesn't want short, simple content.
Loading suggestions...