Blog: Short and sweet, or long and detailed

[Elenny]

I have a question for the blogger or blog fanatic in you.

Do you prefer blogs with short posts or long posts?

Two of my favorite blogs are Steve Pavlina's and Seth Godin's. I read Seth's every day because his posts are usually short and to the point. I read Steve's blog about once a week, usually on weekends when I have more time to read and digest.

Since Steve's blog is about PD, and Seth's is about business and marketing, I would not put them in the same category. I don't prefer one over the other, but I visit Seth's 5 or 6 times per week, and Steve's once or maybe twice a week.

If you were to launch a new blog, which style would you use (perhaps thinking about monetizing in the long run)....and as a blog reader, which style do you prefer?

[Brutha]

Seth Godin has a very different approach then most bloggers.
Seth was big before his blog through speaking and his books. He sees himself as a famous person who gets a few ideas into writing and shares them with his audience afterwards.
He once wrote that he would also write those posts without an audience.
He doesn't try to be effective at promoting his blog and hasn't a domain for his blog. He probably also doesn't think about targeting certain keywords to get more SEO traffic.
He just blogs.

I don't think I would follow Seths approach when I would be a nobody (someone without name recognition in the niche that you are targeting) who wanted to start blogging.

If you were to launch a new blog, which style would you use (perhaps thinking about monetizing in the long run)....and as a blog reader, which style do you prefer?

In which role can you be more authentic?

[JimOfferman]

I prefer short and sweet. Not necessarily Seth-short, but half page to one full page (in print) short.

I think Steve's posts are a little on the long side overall. That doesn't bother me when he writes about topics I'm interested in, but if a post comes up that lies outside of my comfort zone, I usually go "ugh..." and then skip to the next one.

I guess long and detailed works best with an audience that is into the topic you are writing about... short works better for drawing in a new crowd.

[Trezker]

It depends a lot on what you're blogging about.
You need to evaluate it for each post. Some things can be said in a short post other things need a long explanation and other things still may need to be split over several posts.

I don't think you can generalize your blog to be one size or another. It just happens. But the rule is that if you write long posts you need to publish at a slower rate, and short posts can be published at a higher tempo. Remember that you can "future publish", so you can write all you like now and set them to automatically publish later. At least wordpress has this feature.

[MattFYF]

My blog uses a mix of long posts and short posts. The longest post I've ever written was about ~1,500 words, the shortest post I've written was about ~650 words.

I personally love shorter, compact blog posts, maybe 850 to 1,000 words, that are structured, unique, and highly flavored with the author's original writing style. As a result, my blog posts generally follow those three points.

Long posts work, but since most people don't have amazingly editing skills, these posts often end up being an incoherent rambling mess with maybe one or two sentences in the entire post actually worth reading. I write a long post if I know my topic should be covered in just one post. Otherwise, I'll break it down into several smaller posts for the convenience of the reader.

I don't think too much about monetization when I write blog posts. I just write what I know is 100% true for me and what I know from experience. Sometimes I elaborate on a topic that I know could make money in the future... sometimes I elaborate on a topic that virtually has no chance at making even pennies.

[prasunsen]

"Short and sweet, or long and detailed".

I prefer useful. If you have something to say, say it. If you need more words for that, use them. In most cases if you really have something to say, you'll need to write a long post - there are of course few exceptions (not only Seth). I've read posts of just 5 lines which are great. But it's a rarity.

[cinnabar]

It's all a matter of taste, really... and writing content and ability. I love Steve's longer blogs, as the quality does not diminish throughout. The longer the better! But long blogs in which people ramble and repeat themselves unnecessarily, I stop reading and visit another site. Short blogs that have no real content get the same treatment.

[hkalchemy]

Personally I think short is better. I used to write long blog posts but I realized that most people want a quick 'take away' message. Short and often is better I think.

[Savage]

One nice thing about long posts is that they tend to generate a lot of referrals, especially since there aren't as many bloggers who are willing to go long. It's more work to write longer posts, but those posts can be more impactful, so they also get more attention and links than shorter ones.

Many of my articles rank high in search engines because they're disgustingly detailed, so lots of people link to them. This includes articles that are longer than 7,000 words, such as How to Make Money From Your Blog, as well as series like the Polyphasic Sleep and Raw Food Diet trials.

If you can be disgustingly detailed on a topic, you have a good chance of creating one of the very best articles on that topic, which means you have a much better shot of rising to the top of the search engines and staying there for a very long time.

Most people won't read through those longer articles, but those who take the time to do so will find them more impactful, and they're more likely to refer others to those articles as well, so on a practical level you can experience a lot of traffic growth (and traffic retention) from longer, more authoritative articles.

These are some of the benefits of longer articles, but the main reason I write this way is that the style suits me. I don't get inspired to write short, shallow pieces. When I think about a topic, I like to go into it very deeply... until I feel I've covered it thoroughly without too many loose ends.

People may say they want shorter posts, but I don't want to be another blogger pumping out infocrack to feed that kind of addiction. I'd prefer to attract long-term readers as opposed to drive-by visitors who just want a quick fix.

[Lucas]

I think longer posts can be increible as long as the authors organize the information clearly and don't draw out the parts that dont need it. I am not a fan of extremely short posts though, the kind that are 200 words or less, at least not if the bulk of the blog is made up of that.

[elisabeth]

My two cents...

I'd say it depends on what the author wants to accomplish. Like Steve wrote, if you want to be known for quality in-depth articles, and you have the time to do that regularly, by all means go for it.

In terms of monetization though, and Google ranking, the frequency of good and long enough articles seems to be quite important. They do have to have a certain minimum length (and probably nobody really knows what it is) to be "counted" by Google, but if they get too long, they may lose some of their audience. So the good old rule, know your audience, is another consideration.

Like I often told my students, "I don't grade by the pound." Same goes for blogs. There's no price for length per se.

Make them long enough to do a good job with what you're trying to accomplish, but don't add fluff for the sake of making it longer (or for any other reason for that matter). If there's lots of substance and you feel the blog entry might get longer than your average audience can handle (or wants to), you can always divide it into sections and publish them one a day or every other day. Makes people come back to check the sequel if it's really good, and that would be a good thing, wouldn't it?

[mrsmith]

Originally Posted by Elenny

I have a question for the blogger or blog fanatic in you.

Do you prefer blogs with short posts or long posts?

Two of my favorite blogs are Steve Pavlina's and Seth Godin's. I read Seth's every day because his posts are usually short and to the point. I read Steve's blog about once a week, usually on weekends when I have more time to read and digest.

Since Steve's blog is about PD, and Seth's is about business and marketing, I would not put them in the same category. I don't prefer one over the other, but I visit Seth's 5 or 6 times per week, and Steve's once or maybe twice a week.

If you were to launch a new blog, which style would you use (perhaps thinking about monetizing in the long run)....and as a blog reader, which style do you prefer?

I prefer to read quality posts. It all depends on your style of communication. Are you verbose or succinct?

If you're succinct the worst thing you can do is go out of your way to be verbose (and vice versa). It can only diminish the quality of your work in the long haul.

Blogging is supposed to be about authenticity right?

[javed]

It simply depends on the type of topic and your approach.

I, however, normally have long blog posts (around 1500+ words). Notwithstanding this, on some "down" days, I write small posts as well.

[mercuryrising]

I like long and detailed with subheadings and a useful topic. I am a slow reader, so I scan articles for pertinent information. Sometimes I'll go back and read the whole article if I find it to be worth it. For that reason I like the article to be broken up into smaller chunks. I'm a sucker for "10 things..." and "3 steps to..." titles because I know they will be in that format.

[MSC2471]

I prefer a mix of shorter and longer posts, as some topics can be covered in a few paragraphs and others need more than 2,000 words to cover adequately. If I know a blogger is going to deliver high quality lengthy posts, it's worth my time to spend an evening reviewing the past week's worth of content which I can fortunately do working at a third shift job, where staying awake is the priority!

Matt

[selfchangeclub]

Well condensed so that its right to the point. No time for rambling because people just speed read for the information they need.