Long versus short copy

[petersen]

Does the search engines have a preference for pages with long or short copy? (Assuming our short copy fulfill the basic keyword requirements)

While a long copy, enable us to include more long tail keywords, i find that most people prefer to read a short copy. We currently try to keep each page short and give the reader an option to explorer further with links to more detailed pages.

[RyanKent]

The preference is for quality content.

Some page SEO tools will offer feedback based on the amount of characters or words, but those are just guides.

Think of a simple dictionary page. A random word definition does not offer a lot of content. As long as it is unique, relevant, and helpful to viewers then the content can still rank well.

You would never want to intentionally make an article longer to satisfy a search engine or stuff it with key words. If your content is larger then your page layout allows, a "read more" link to another page, or a link that then shows additional content is perfectly acceptable.

[EGOL]

We have enriched lots of pages from a few sentences to several paragraphs and then to substantive articles of a couple thousand words with images, tables, references and sometimes video.   These enrichments usually were accompanied by a ranking improvement but were always accompanied by an increase in long tail traffic and an increase in the average visitor time on page.  I believe that they also made the pages much more linkable.

[IPINGlobal54]

Quality first, and enough of it to avoid looking "thin". Post Panda, the general consensus of opinion appears to be around the 400 - 500 word mark.

As much as it is more work, that aim from the SE angle is to show results that are going to answer a searchers query.

The way in which SE's can quantify this is through bounce rate, time on site, and page views per visit. Bounce rate is fairly well known - high bounce rate means a good chance your content is not relevant and/or not ranking correctly for the terms it is targeting. Time on site, although not openly taken into consideration by google publicly - if you think about it, the more time a prospect spends on your site, the more chance of them performing your chosen call to action. Pages per visit will come naturally as a result of mastering the previous 2 points, and again increase your chance of a call to action happening.

[MarieHaynes]

Where did that 400 to 500 word stat come from?  I would guess that this is just conjecture and that no one knows.

I have a number of articles on my site that are well over 500 words and do well in the SERPS.  I think that as long as you are writing useful information that is meant to help the reader then you will do well.  I personally don't think Google has an optimum number of words that they like.

[petersen]

When you enrich a page with articles and video, do you include this in the same page or do you link to it?

In our case, we are trying to promote a product page. The page gives an overall product description and it has sub pages that each describe individual features. Plus we have a couple of resource links, that link to related datasheet and video.

In your experience, would we benefit from including more of the linked content directly on the product page, instead of linking to it on separate pages?

[EGOL]

Relevant to this question, my experience is from building information pages on information sites.  We load them with deep substantive content supplemented with data, media and images.   Several thousand words, reference lists, data tables, a video or two and a dozen big images.

This is an info site with a small store.  The info pages get us into competitive, high traffic SERPs but we often feature sales items just like you might see adsense or other promotions. These can be buy buttons right on the info page and always have links to a product pages with full product information.

A great way to put products into difficult relevant SERPs.

[IPINGlobal54]

You're right, Google doesn't appear to have an opinion on length that is has voiced - more pointing out the quality of the content itself - my statement was more from what I had seen here and there on various publications, and on also as a result of generally having seen pages with more content on performing better organically over time that pages with thinner content (this is not to say that the 500 number was a max at all - far from it, I too have pages 2 or 3 times that size). I would rather the task of optimising performance of 500 word pages than say 250 word pages.

Apologies to all for not being a bit clearer with my original answer