• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Scott McKelvey Copywriting & Marketing

I write marketing content that explains what you do, and the value of what you do, in a way that matters to your ideal client.

  • ABOUT
  • SERVICES
  • PORTFOLIO
  • REVIEWS
  • BLOG
  • CONTACT

Scott McKelvey / August 28, 2013

Why Google’s “In-Depth Articles” Feature Is a Joke

Google, in its noble quest to bring high quality content to search results and weed out the dastardly black hat bandits, is now highlighting long-form content – “in-depth articles” that are at least 2,000 words long.

According to Search Engine Watch:

“There are few clues from Google about exactly how they choose to highlight certain articles but one thing we do know is that the minimum word count for potential inclusion is 2,000 words.”

Wait a minute…

Google came up with a completely arbitrary word count to define the length of an “in-depth article,” and content can now receive preferential search treatment just because it’s longer?

Seriously?

What if a company’s audience prefers to consume content in smaller doses? Are they screwed?

What if a company is effectively concise and creates content that provides quality, in-depth analysis in 1,500 words? No dice?

What if a topic is complex and 2,000 words really aren’t enough to provide in-depth coverage? Who makes that call?

What if a company decides to beef up an article about a very very very very very very very exciting breakthrough just to reach that 2,000-word minimum?

Okay, that may be an exaggeration, but my point is that some content creators will insert some artificial padding to reach that magical 2,000-word threshold.

That’s not in-depth analysis. It’s fluff of the black hat variety.

I’m all for rewarding quality content, and I assume there are other factors that determine whether or not content is “in-depth.” But using word counts to define content as anything but long or short is just silly.

Go ahead and tell me I’m overreacting, but this is a product of the larger problem. Looking at the big picture, there are two things to keep in mind about Google.

First, you can calculate all of the numbers you want – social shares, web traffic, links, arbitrary word counts, or whatever else Google includes in their mysterious search algorithms.

There is no way for any mathematical formula to judge and quantify content quality. Period.

Second, Google search is not about matching people with the right business. It’s about matching people with a business that follows all of Google’s rules for Google+, keywords, links, anchor text, schema markups, article length and structure, and all of the other things that Google tries to control.

Actually, I think it’s pretty clear that Google wants its search platform to be about matching people with businesses that pay to be placed at the top of search results. Hey, that’s the only guaranteed way to get there, right?

Google is a business so I don’t fault them for this. We just need to take the blinders off and realize what’s really driving all of these updates, features and “best practices.”

So what is a business to do? It’s simple, really.

Stop trying to figure out and please Google. As soon as you think you’ve figured it out, they change the rules anyway. The game is rigged.

Instead, focus on figuring out and pleasing your audience. Let your audience define quality content and in-depth analysis, not Google.

What kind of content does your audience crave? What topics interest them? What problems do they need solved? What article length works best for them?

Where do they go to find the kind of content you provide – their email box, social media, certain websites? Find as many platforms as possible for sharing your content instead of being overly reliant on Google, which is becoming more and more of a crapshoot.

If that means writing more 2,000-word articles, blog posts, white papers and case studies because your audience craves them, that’s great. There’s nothing wrong with long-form content.

Just make sure you’re creating and sharing great, original content consistently. Regardless of how you or your audience define quality content or an in-depth article, it’s pretty obvious that you won’t get anywhere if you do nothing.

But for goodness sake, please don’t stray from what your audience wants just because Google might let you cut in line.

How far do you go to make sure your content is Google-friendly?

Share this article:

Share on LinkedIn Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Email

Filed Under: Observations & Commentary Tagged With: Google In-Depth Articles, NJ Blog Writing, NJ Content Marketing, nj content writer, nj copywriter, NJ SEO Content Writing

Scott McKelvey

Content writer. Marketing consultant. Storyteller. Communicator. Interviewer. Listener. Information sponge. Simplifier of the complex. Husband. Dad to two girls. Homework checker. Soccer coach. Not necessarily in that order.

Subscribe for the Win

Receive blog articles with insights, highlights, lowlights, and commentary about content writing and marketing.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Emma says

    March 9, 2020 at 2:50 am

    Hey Scott McKelvey,
    Great post-Scott, I’ve been working in Content Marketing for several years now, I’m going to go ahead and say that search is trending toward relevancy. I have been trying out a new tool called INK, it has built-in SEO features. So far, so good. Had to share a platform with my fellow writers: https://seo.app/MY37InW9k

    Reply
  2. Kirsten Meyer says

    August 30, 2013 at 3:19 pm

    Great post, Scott. According to Google their new preference for longer content will not of necessity exclude the “little guys” in favor of big corporations and media conglomerates, but according to the search results I saw, all of the top results were from websites that published content in print as well as online, which for obvious reasons most blogs and small to mid businesses don’t do….. You are 100% correct; junk is junk no matter the length and most ideas can be conveyed with far fewer words than 2,000. Leave it to the people to decide (and not just via +1s !)

    Reply
    • Scott_McKelvey says

      August 30, 2013 at 3:23 pm

      Thanks, Kirsten. I didn’t get into the impact on small business, but I agree that the writing is on the wall – this is much more likely to help the big companies who pay to be at the top of search results. Write for real people, not Google!

      Reply
  3. jaynalocke says

    August 29, 2013 at 3:25 am

    Fascinating. I’ve been having discussions about long vs. short content with my colleagues for a very long time. We all came to the same conclusion – that the right amount of content for any given article or blog is simply the amount of words it takes to provide some great value and answer the burning questions of the person who is seeking that information. And if there is any fluff, it absolutely must go. What’s interesting is that all of the content we produce, and have outsourced talent produce, comes in at a magical range of about 800 to 1000 words, with a few topics needing more or less. But that is the sweet spot.

    Now and then you read a 2,000 word piece that is so compelling you don’t even notice it is that long. It takes a special writer to craft such a piece, IMHO. But Google says JUMP, and many people ask “how high?” So this will be a very interesting exercise indeed.

    Reply
    • Scott_McKelvey says

      August 29, 2013 at 1:07 pm

      You nailed it, Jayna. The ideal length is whatever it takes to make your point. We all have our own sweet spots. That’s what concerns me. Will people abandon their sweet spots to stay in Google’s good graces? Some will, unfortunately.

      Reply
  4. Don Lafferty says

    August 28, 2013 at 8:04 pm

    Google’s newest angle is exactly the opposite of everything I’ve been advising my clients for a couple of years. I will continue to advise them to write articles as short and sweet as possible, but now they’ll be able to blow an article up when it’s the best way to get the value to the reader.

    Reply
    • Scott_McKelvey says

      August 28, 2013 at 8:35 pm

      Same here, Don. I always say to keep the topics very specific so you can dig deep and still be brief. I have no problem with working long-form content into the mix when it makes sense, but these rules and parameters from Google – jeez, I just don’t get them.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Primary Sidebar

Subscribe for the Win

Receive blog articles with insights, highlights, lowlights, and commentary about content writing and marketing.

Recent Blog Articles

  • Someone Subscribed to My Blog When an Article I Wrote in 2014 Showed Up on Google. Here’s Why It Matters.
  • What Marketers Can Learn from Mrs. Parker’s Storytelling Advice to Ralphie
  • Research: Thought Leadership Got Crowded but Still Delivers Serious Value
  • Marketing Observations from My Summer Vacation, 2022 Edition
  • It’s All About Creating Moments of Human Connection

Footer

Contact

PO Box 160
Florence, NJ 08518
908-907-0031
info@ScottMcKelvey.com

Search

Connect

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

© Scott McKelvey Consulting, LLC. All Rights Reserved.