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?
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 !)
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.