1 Post or 3

[Dariush]

For my latest project I'm focused on building niche authority and one of the best ways to convey authority is to produce monster articles on topics - the ultimate guide sort of thing!

I'm trying not to let stuff like this slow me down but as I'm about to build out my next category I thought I'd ask...

Is it better to write 1 monster article of 5,000 or should I look to break it up into 2 or 3 of 1,500 words? I know it comes down to intent but if we were to create a page targeting "sumo deadlift" would we then target other terms like "how to sumo deadlift" and "kettlebell sumo deadlift" or would these be separate articles supporting the main page?

 

[Prentzz]

For that example I'd just create one page about the sumo deadlift. It's not a big topic, I follow bodybuilding and I have no clue how you're going to write 5k words about it without going full "this is the best exercise because its the best exercise for your lower back and will help to build your lowerback because it is the best exercise for it".

The reason I'd throw it all on one page is because it makes it much easier, in my opinion, to build links to it and use it for traffic leaking. With the climate of SEO these days, you're going to need to build links to the individual post if you want to rank it... probably a lot of links. That's going to be far easier with one ultimate guide.

E.g. you build links from people asking how to do it, you build links from those wanting to compare to regular, you build links from those asking why it's good for your posture.

If it was different pages, now you have multiple, moderate-weak pages rather than one strong page that will rank.

 

[Dariush]

@Prentzz that was my thoughts but thanks for clearing it up buddy!

I saw the Strong Lifts guide on Deadlifting (although my site isn't in the fitness space) and was blown away by the amount of content, links and shares his authority post on the topic got.

As you say, given how SEO seems to be going it makes sense to make these bulletproof posts going forward.

 

[turbin3]

If it were me, I might measure the average volume of content for your primary term's (and maybe a few variations or related ones) page 1 rankings, and go from there. Sure, skyscraper stuff works. The difference is, what niche, what context, and what target demographic?

I lift as well, and do quite a bit of study on the subjects of health and fitness. Considering the target demographic...I don't know how many people searching for deadlifting info (or similar) have time to read a skyscraper of words. I may be weird but, a few words are great. What I really want to see, however, is video.

The academics behind a particular lifting method tend to be very visually-oriented. I would warrant a guess that skyscraper for this could have the potential for poor engagement and UX, unless the presentation is very creative and providing a progressive reading experience.

Couple the above with the fact that "more" content isn't necessarily better, and doesn't always substantially affect rankings. As always, this is term and niche dependent. I detailed an example recently, where a competitor in a niche literally wrote 13,000% more content, and was still outranked by several others with 13,000% LESS content. CCarter also expertly summarized the subject of content volume, recently, and really put things in perspective.

Lettuce be cereal. Anyone that would "consume" 20,000 words is the reading equivalent of a morbidly obese person that eats a half dozen cheeseburgers for breakfast. It's an odd duck that'll be fine with that sort of thing.

Considering all of that, I wouldn't totally discount the strategy of segmenting this into multiple posts. Turn it into a silo. Maybe general deadlifting is the top. Then segment out to sumo, romanian, olympic. There's gonna be opportunity behind all of those... In this way, the reading experience is more progressive, and people can get only what they want, as opposed to potentially a whole lot that they don't.

 

[Ryuzaki]

My recommendation is to mention everything is summary form on the main article using sub-headers. You want completion there, even if it means breadth and not depth (for the sake of keeping it shorter).

Within these sub-headings, give the real life conversation version of that topic. 200-400 words. But then you can create a new article just for that sub-heading where you explore the topic in full depth, and then link it back to the main article. And if you're inclined you can link to the "full exploration" article from the main article too.

The benefit of doing this is having more content wrapped around the main hub article to provide a relevancy net and funnel traffic or not lose traffic from people who want deeper info.