While working with people to better understand and utilize blogs, I am often asked about the requisite length of a blog post; often inaccurately phrased as “how long does it have to be?”. The first answer to this is that if you think it has to be done at all, you’re going about it all wrong. Blogging is supposed to be fun and enjoyable and if you ever feel burdened by it- don’t blog.
Blogging has unlimited benefits, but if you aren’t enjoying it then, quite frankly, your blog will show it and you’ll be unable to reap the said benefits anyway. For example: blogging well can build a community of conversation. But if you don’t enjoy blogging and the posts suffer, then no one is going to be talking about it anyway. So why do it?
Anyway- back to the length question. The easy answer: not too much. Far too often posts are longer than they should be and I can say with full confidence that it’s immeasurably better to have a shorter post than a post that runs too long. Researchers recently determined that after 25 seconds on a page, people aren’t really reading anything anyway (only dedicating 4.4 seconds per 100 words, after the initial 25 seconds… that’s not good). So it’s better to leave the post shorter and have that text read, than ramble on in a space no one is getting to anyway.
I usually like to avoid responding too directly to the question about post length, because then it is seen as an assignment. If I say 300-500 words, then that becomes a goal to hit 400… when ultimately the goal should be to get the message across.
My answer is as vague as possible: keep it between 100 and 1,000 words. Introduce the post, get your message across, and wrap it up. And it’s better to have a fun and interesting post with 100 words and a link, than a twelve page manifesto on your love of McDonald’s dollar menu (this is out there… I’ve seen it and it’s scary).
Ironically the point of this post was actually a test for me, to see if I’m actually able to just spit out a quick post about a topic I know. Didn’t work. Let’s just write this up in the series of “advice I’ll give on my blog about things I know really well but that I don’t do personally”. I’ve already covered the blogroll and now length; next week maybe I’ll talk about how crappy my SEO is.
This short post: 411 words.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:13 am
No offense to big Z here - but you’ve never been one to be concise! I’d say 411 words is an accomplishment.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
@Drew-
Two words: You’re right.
May 14th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Zach:
Guilty as charged.
I recognize my sorry tendency to bloviate, which I think is in part a paniced response to the pressure I put myself under to populate the post with observations I hope someone will find interesting.
Good points all around and I will try to follow your sage advice and give brevity a chance. Maybe that will free me up to have more fun and interact with readers on a more consistent basis.
The research you site is intriguing. We at the station can at times be consumed with debating content I suspect is failing to capture the attention of some of our visitors. The Perez article confirms this suspicion even further. Thanks for passing it along.
May 14th, 2008 at 11:58 am
@Ken
The inherent problem in shortening blog posts, is that blog authors, like you and me, are naturally going to want to share more.
It’s our character to want to write, speak, and share a lot- which is why blogging suits us. The problem arises that the research shows people don’t necessarily want to read more.
But yes, you are absolutely right about writing shorter posts means having more fun and time to interact with readers… that was the goal of my original post- two quick paragraphs and move on - and it ended up at 411 words… not too dissimilar from this comment, actually…
Anyway- thanks for stopping by!
May 14th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
[…] 411 word discourse on the merits of brevity has inspired me to prove I can be pithy as the next […]