Total Word Count vs. Number of Pages

[Politico]

Just had a thought and am wondering if anyone's got some data or insight on it.

Lately I've been writing a lot more content, but everything turns into a massive "ultimate guide" style post. The topic is still narrow and everything in the post is topically relevant.

But it got me wondering - what's your thoughts on the better approach for your website's overall topical strength:

1. Total number of words published across site
2. Total number of pages published and indexed from site

Aside from the benefits of more internal link possibilities with approach 2, or the benefits of fully covering a topic with approach 1, is there any reason to focus on having more pages published, and not just more words published in general?

Interested in hearing some thoughts on this.

Edit: rather than talk about what's "better," do you think there's any DIFFERENCE (in Google's eyes) between the two approaches.

 

[ashley]

check out what the top ranking ppl on G are doing, it probably varies per niche

eg in the gardening niche it appears to be all massive articles covering every angle eg pothos- what is pothos, how to grow, pests, how to propagate, etc.

I haven't looked too deep (not my niche but actual research I did for one of my dying plants lol) so there might be sites crushing it with shorter articles - but if I entered this niche I would definitely be doing longer articles like the spruce etc do

benefit of indepth articles would be easier time getting natural links, G compares your site to the other top sites and thinks you've covered the topic just as well, etc. Plus if you go the ads route you've got more ad placement spots. Plus I guess you can sell "pothos propagating tools" "pothos pest killing sheets" etc

also - the most profitable pages get updated regularly, I'm guessing they get updated to be longer, more media, etc.

 

[Ryuzaki]

In Google's eyes I think the ideal website covers all the sub-topics (deals directly with the various user queries on as many pages as is required) and all these pages that cover these topics do so in full depth without excessive breadth.

If you find yourself drifting off the direct, immediate topic, then that's too broad and it belongs in another post. Following @ashley's example...

• What is Pothos
  • How to Grow Pothos
  • Pothos Pest Prevention
  • How to Propogate Pothos
  • Pothos Watering & Feeding Schedule
  • Does Pothos Need Full Sun?

All of those sub-topics could and possibly should be covered (only briefly) under the "what is pothos" article, but they then should be covered in their own full depth in their own articles, and in each one of those articles there's no need to revisit every sub-topic. That, in my eyes, is what Google prefers, because it's what the user is looking for. They want exactly what they want and nothing more.

 

[thisishatred]

This

All of those sub-topics could and possibly should be covered (only briefly) under the "what is pothos" article, but they then should be covered in their own full depth in their own articles, and in each one of those articles there's no need to revisit every sub-topic

and This

In Google's eyes I think the ideal website covers all the sub-topics (deals directly with the various user queries on as many pages as is required) and all these pages that cover these topics do so in full depth without excessive breadth.

I could go to my Skype and search for the term "granular" in conversations with people and they all relate to what Ryu just typed; Google has become far more granular in what they want from web pages.

Edit: I was curious so I did just that, the last time I said it was March 2023 - the day after an announced core update; Go figure.

If you haven't paid attention to these core updates, you'll notice that a lot of the keywords you lose on - if you really look closely - aren't your header terms; If you do, it's either +/- like 3-5 positions or you had the unfortunate circumstance of not existing anymore (sorry!).

This has been happening for a long while now.

Google literally wants the best answer for every question (query) possible.

That often is an article where-in you solely answer said question as well as some questions related to that question, without having it lead into another tangential question.

---

Folks that are smarter than myself would call these "query paths." And for any "query path" (aka what your post is about) it should mostly be about that query.

When pre-planned too it can create efficient silos that also improve crawlability - it also makes internal linking wicked fucking easy.

If you're a visual person (like me), these help to mind map your content efforts and can make the job of your Writer way easier.

From the example above, say we pre-planned as apposed to just pushing publish on content that's far into the silo:

/house-plants/pothos/
/house-plants/pothos/care/
/house-plants/pothos/care/sun/
/house-plants/pothos/care/watering/
/house-plants/pothos/care/pests/
/house-plants/pothos/propagation/

*/types/ is a tricky one because it might be able to work within the hub /house-plants/pothos/

vs

/what-is-pothos/
/pothos-plant-care/
/how-much-sun-do-pothos-need/
/pothos-watering-requirements/
etc.

As you get more granular into your silo, you have each of those "query paths" answer the question in the best way possible. Anything tangential you could mention in passing in the content and have it internal link within the silo.

**/house-plants/ could likely be more efficient/different and/or modified via entities in the title in some capacity. I'd wager to say "best house plants" is likely hard to rank but it's a useful page, provided you don't treat it like a simple category archive.

You could even modify intent in the same way.

---

Even if you don't opt to silo, the above "query path" stuff is a big reason @CCarter's avalanche works and why you see some of the mass AI sites work.

The goal of these types of builds is to literally answer all of these query paths.

 

[ashley]

what about issues of cannibalization eg you'd want to rank page /house-plants/pothos/ for pothos and not How to Propogate Pothos?
I actually checked The Spruce again and they follow this type of path @thisishatred mentioned

 

[thisishatred]

what about issues of cannibalization eg you'd want to rank page /house-plants/pothos/ for pothos and not How to Propogate Pothos?
I actually checked The Spruce again and they follow this type of path @thisishatred mentioned

I'd re-read what I wrote

You'd do it here, in-depth.
/house-plants/pothos/propagation/

Not on the hub page specifically for the /pothos/ page itself.

Hence: "And for any "query path" (aka what your post is about) it should mostly be about that query."

You'd be surprised at how smart Google is when you silo/internal properly.