I used to swear by long-form blog posts until a single A/B test changed my mind

For two years I was all about those 2,000 word guides because I thought Google loved them. Then I ran a test on my gardening site: a 400 word list post about cheap tools versus a 1,500 word deep dive. That short list post got 4x the clicks and way more engagement in the first week. Now I'm mixing up lengths but I won't ignore short and punchy again. Anyone else find short posts outperforming the long ones for certain topics?

2 comments

2 Comments

the_joseph1mo ago

I dunno, are clicks and engagement really the right metric for success? People click on listicles because they're easy, not because they're actually more useful. If someone reads a 400 word list about cheap tools they still might not know how to use any of them. Meanwhile that long guide could be building real trust over time even if it takes longer to see results. Maybe the short stuff just looks better on a quick glance but doesn't stick.

milesj701mo ago

I remember reading a study from Moz last year that said people spend 2x more time on pages with long form content compared to listicles. @the_joseph you're spot on that the short stuff grabs eyes but the deeper guides build actual know-how. In my experience, the trust from those detailed posts pays off way more in the long run even if the clicks are lower at first.