UX Functions for 10x Content

[TMHoward86]

Yep, that's exactly the concern I have. I'll keep trying to figure out a simple UX way to overcome the problem. Hoping someone has tackled this before.

[EGOL]

I'm concerned that I'll need to have some kind of in-post navigation

Do not be concerned about this if you decide to use them.  From my experience these are very powerful on-page optimization, second only to the title tag in their power.   Wikipedia uses it.  Check it out there if you have not noticed.  Kickass.

[randfish]

Hi Tim - great to hear that you're thinking about 10X content, but please don't confuse quality for quantity. Some of the best content out there that serves searchers and visitors 10X better than the competition isn't very long at all. For example http://www.useronboard.com/features-vs-benefits/ is a phenomenal page that's performed incredibly well for UserOnboard, but it's bite-sized content.

To quote Shakespeare, "Brevity is the soul of Wit." If you can make better content easier to consume, do so. Your visitors and your analytics will thank you.

[TMHoward86]

Thanks Rand. Really appreciate the feedback and I've definitely considered what you guys are saying here on the thread. The challenge for me is that the traffic I want to drive is typically based on keywords like the following:

• rugby cardio tips
• beginner rugby tips
• what position should i play in rugby
• how to join a rugby club
• rugby tackling drills
• tackling drills for rugby
• exercises for rugby players
• rugby specific exercises

I get the sense that people searching for terms like these are looking for long-form instructional content rather than a short sales or splash page. If I was searching those terms, I would be looking for information that is both educational and actionable so I can learn and implement.

Do you have any thoughts on the best kinds of in-post navigations? Is a simple TOC the way to go? Thanks again!

[randfish]

I think TOC (ala Wikipedia like EGOL recommended) could work just fine, though you may want to do a UX/usability test with some of your audience.

Re: the content - if you think/know that searchers are seeking long-form, highly detailed stuff, go ahead and give it to them! You'll know your audience far better than I. Only point I might make is that visuals, video, diagrams, and charts/data (e.g. maybe something like a visual showing what muscles are needed for each type of move and the exercises that simulate them) can go a long way, sometimes more powerfully than text alone.

[EGOL]

We write our articles with lots of subheadings.  This allows our readers to quickly scan down the article for sections of interest.

We often include a TOC navigation similar to Wikipedia that floats left or right within a column of text.  From using CrazyEgg we know that LOTS of people click these links.

Also, in some articles that are about highly visual content, the top image on the page will include a matrix of thumbnail photos (think an article titled: Arizona Cactus Varieties ) with each thumbnail showing  a different type of cactus and a text link below it that the visitor clicks, the click takes him/her down the page to view associated content.  If you have colorful and interesting thumbnails these graphic TOC navigation will be clicked like mad.

[TMHoward86]

Awesome, thankyou! That's exactly what I had envisaged.

[Vacatia_SEO]

What are you thoughts about breaking up the large blog post into multiple articles and linking between them instead of housing them under one URL? We are working on theme park guides and there are so many highly competitive keywords that would seem impossible to rank with one awesome post.

Or do you recommend keeping it all under one URL and just crushing it on UX. Can I assume that the 10x content combined with the usability (not having to ping pong all over the place) will trump 5 articles that are focused on unique keywords.

[EGOL]

Most of the articles on my website are between 500 and 2000 words plus two to ten photos, often with tabular data or line graphics.   I have experimented with splitting them into multiple pages and keeping everything on a single URL.  Here is my conclusion after doing this for about ten years....

If you have lots of direct traffic, as an example, CNN who has throngs of people coming directly to their site every day, AND you receive a minority of your traffic from search, then it might be a good idea to break your article up into multiple pages to capitalize on the many pageviews and ad revenue that comes with them.

However, if you rely on search for your traffic your nice article broken into ten pages of trivial length is not going to pull in as much traffic from search as one big long impressive page.  The big page will rank better because it is substantive, it will pull in more long tail traffic because it has more keyword diversity and it will impress the visitor who will more likely share it.  And, you will not have to worry about Panda slapping you because you have a site loaded with pages with trivial amounts of content.

ALL of my money is bet on the big article page.

[Vacatia_SEO]

appreciate the point of view! And the Whiteboard Friday today was very timely for this as well. Highly recommend watching if you're looking for ways to do keyword research and how to incorporate it into specific pieces of content. #randprovides