 |
|
10-30-2004, 03:43 AM
|
|
SEO Junior and a half
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 51
|
|
|
Recommended text length in body
I would like to know what would be the recommended word count approx., since I have seen several contradictory versions. Right now I have 942 words in my front page's body text. Is that all right or should I cut it down? Thank you very much.
|
10-30-2004, 09:28 AM
|
|
SEO
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In the deep woods
Posts: 165
|
|
I've seen conflicting recommendations, too. WebCEO suggested 170 to 500 words. The opposing view is "content is king" where more is better.
I found this research pretty interesting: http://www.gorank.com/research/0219...ty_Report.ph p
Based on that, I'd say your are in the ballpark. |
10-30-2004, 10:12 AM
|
 |
SEO
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mobile, AL.
Posts: 298
|
|
|
I never knew there was a suggested limit.
I've got pages with anywhere from 800 to 1100+ words and there doesn't seem to be any problems with it.
|
10-30-2004, 10:32 AM
|
|
SEO
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 343
|
|
|
Hi guys!
I have got a vague idea that there are some schools of thought that would say you should consider going for one of two optimal choices..Either have a "shortish page" with a very highly focused theme of X number of words (can't remember the exact number) or you should have a larg amount of text and possibly different variations of the keyword phrases.
I'm not one hundred percent sure about the details but I heard there were two general sizes you can go for...apparantly.
|
11-04-2004, 01:51 AM
|
|
SEO Junior
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 22
|
|
Maybe I would just apply the golden rule, nothing too extensive is too good  |
11-04-2004, 05:15 AM
|
 |
SEO
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 233
|
|
The Gorank Study http://www.gorank.com/research/0219...ty_Report.php is interesting, but it is based on the premise of non-competitive keywords.
It is quite possible that many of the sites made the top 10 without any SEO. For example, many of them could just have the company name as the title.
It would be nice to compare it to a high density study. |
11-04-2004, 05:42 AM
|
|
SEO Junior and a half
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 51
|
|
|
Could you repost the link to the report? It doesn't work. Thanks!
|
11-04-2004, 05:46 AM
|
|
SEO
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 233
|
|
|
Sorry. Use the link above in US Netizen's post.
|
11-04-2004, 07:33 AM
|
|
SEO Junior and a half
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 42
|
|
|
If Google's objective is to find relevant websites, I would think that more content is better than less.
|
11-04-2004, 07:44 AM
|
|
SEO
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 233
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sd006
If Google's objective is to find relevant websites, I would think that more content is better than less.
|
That makes perfect sense.
I wonder though, if you have a lot of words then in order to get a high keyword density you have to have a large number of repeats. Having the same word(s) on the page too many times probably doesn't seem natural.
I have always heard that to score well the number of words should not be too high, but why?  |
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Rate This Thread |
 Linear Mode
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
