We have so many SEO techniques like article writing, blog commenting, guest blogging, classified etc., directly indirectly helps to get rank in search engine or drives traffic to our website. However those are called spam methods of generating low quality back links, so Google is now respecting web Masters who supplies long content. As per some professional analyst surveys it's known that web page should have at least 1200 to 1500 words in order to rank. I'd that correct? ( Not to every case but in general) what is your take on this?
Content length is one of the things that many SEOs debate about, but the argument for longer content is weak at best.
The way this debate got started was some people started using longer content or changing pages with short content to something much longer. What they noticed was that their organic search traffic increased in Analytics. They then jumped to the wrong conclusion that and started telling everyone that Google prefers longer content.
What they failed to track was the actual rankings of any of their keywords, which is what would really tell you how Google viewed longer vs. shorter content.
They saw their organic traffic increase because the longer content had them ranking for a bigger variety of keywords. When you are looking at rankings for a specific keyword, Google does not care how long the content is.
Here is a perfect example I have often used to back this up. Google the word 'pregnant'. This is a frequently searched, 1-word phrase. It is not as competitive as something like "auto insurance", but it is pretty competitive.
This page ranks #1.
https://www.parents.com/pregnancy/
There are about 80 words of actual content on that page. Then there are just snippets of a bunch of articles on the rest of the page. If you want to count all that stuff, there are about 800 words, but the page is dynamic. Those articles are changing all of the time.
WebMD ranks #2. There are about 250 words of content on the page.
https://www.webmd.com/baby/default.htm
The next 2 are longer articles from MedicineNet and of course Wikipedia is a long page.
After that is
https://www.babycenter.com/pregnancy.
Technically, this page is about 500 words, but it is almost nothing but links. All links. There is an intro that is 55 words. That is about the only real content on the page.
Next is
https://www.pregnancy.com/, which is owned by the previous site and they do nothing to hide that (so all those people that tell you that you should not link your sites together should be ignored).
This page has less than 300 words on it, and also is almost only just links. This site did rank #1 for the keyword for years up until about a year ago.
Yes, longer content may result in more organic search traffic because you may rank for a larger variety of keywords. However, it does not play a role in ranking for a single keyword. That is where the whole "longer content is better" argument has it wrong.
My advice, is to stop listening to "SEOs" like Neil Patel who spout out this nonsense and actually take a look in the SERPs for yourself. That or run your own experiments. You will quickly see that they are wrong.
