How much Content is enough?!

That’s very true.
Just adding more and more webpages with similar content won’t help you in long run rather try to provider your audience with Fresh, Helpful, Unique and Updated content embedded with relevant graphics and icons so that they may bookmark your website for repeat visits and will talk about your quality work.
It’s not possiblefor anyone to set a Thumb Rule for adding content however you may follow the KISS rule for better results :wink:

Not sure where you were going, but it didn’t answer my original question

If your audience judges the ‘content’ quality, you need exactly one article. If not, a thousand won’t help.

The point is, know your audience, you don’t have to ask questions nobody is in a position to answer. Don’t, and nobody’s answer – especially when nobody knows a single, solitary thing about the site or audience – will help you.

For example, say the site has one article. The company, however, has a wealth of material, people, and so on to draw from. Plus, they have a house list of 10,000 people who now get a print newsletter. (The company and situation can be anything I want it to because you have told me nothing which would be needed to answer your question.)

I can come up with a dozen scenarios where barely any articles would work.

I can come up with a dozen scenarios where you’d need a wide variety of articles, possibly dozens or a hundred.

I have no information on potential resources, anyone’s ability or availability to write, frequency or number of articles added over what time period, audience and their expectations, or anything else. Nor has this information been provided.

So, what I’m going to make up out of whole closth is the company can put its next newsletter issue on the site, send out notification to its house list …and there you go.

Or not. Because nobody has enough information about the situation to advise you properly. Blind speculation, sure. Useful advice, not a chance. If you have any point in asking this question, you are doing an excellent job of keeping it a secret. Sounds very much like there is no site, you’re looking for a pat answer that would apply to either a site like the New York Times or a medical outsource biller with a hand full of clients. You know, if there every should be a site.

Want an answer, provide useful information.

One quality article is enough as long as you’re answering a problem your audience needs. It’s all about the user. What do they need to know? Can they find the information they require from your competition?

It all comes down to researching your audience and their needs. I’m sure there’s plenty of websites on the same subject as yours with 100’s, 1000’s of articles but you will find they don’t answer any questions, they are “fluff” articles that help no one.

Google has recognised these sites and so have people, so called answers yet they don’t answer anything. Websites like these will fall and good solid information will raise like cream.

why we don’t take a position like reader, in my opinion reader are king, and niche content are angle. reader will return to our site if we give what they need with nice wrote good article content. all robot will like our niche content inside the web although only 10 or 20.

As I’ve said a million times – content is what people visit websites FOR… Content is king… Markup the content semantically, the rest doesn’t matter.

BUT, how much content? IF you have content people will WANT to view, even a single page – that’s enough to launch a site with!

A single page of quality well written content is worth 100 pages of fluff for the sake of looking big.

Hell, there are large websites out there I visit time and time again JUST because of single useful articles or pages… sometimes a giant site only has ONE page I actually care about… have bookmarked, and return to time and time again.

But then, I use a LOT of reference pages.

I agree.

BUT, how much content?

The $10,000 question!

IF you have content people will WANT to view,

Oh, I do!

IF you have content people will WANT to view, even a single page – that’s enough to launch a site with!

That is a bold statement.

A single page of quality well written content is worth 100 pages of fluff for the sake of looking big.

Agreed.

Hell, there are large websites out there I visit time and time again JUST because of single useful articles or pages… sometimes a giant site only has ONE page I actually care about… have bookmarked, and return to time and time again.

But then, I use a LOT of reference pages.

Well, it is good to know that some people feel as you do.

Hopefully my contributions are not so pathetic that all I have is ONE page, but it won’t be 100 or 1,000 any time soon.

As stated several times, my problem is not CONTENT, it is the TIME IT TAKES TO CREATE GOOD CONTENT.

I wrote a really nice article back in December. It was only was 5-7 pages, but heavily researched and had footnotes and everything! That one article took me about 8 hours to write. It was painstaking, but then again, I’d turn it in for an assignment in a college English class, and I think it was as good as most major newspapers. So, I have no issues creating “the good stuff”, however, I also know how much effort it takes to write good stuff!!

Any loser can type up a few pages of drivel in his/her blog, but it takes a significantly greater effort and amount of time to create quality content.

6-12 months down the road I’ll have a wealth of content, but in the first couple of months, it will take time.

Thanks,

Debbie

speaking of original content, have a look at the previous two replies

i sure looks like someone has applied a content spinner – and it left unchanged the curious “Because now google” and double-spaced second paragraph

and i mean come on, guys, are you serious? debbie wanted to know how much content to launch a site with, and the best you can do is

you must provide good news content to visitors

content must be enough that satisfy the reader

this would be funny if it weren’t so sad

this would be funny if it weren’t so sad

I think it is an appropriate response where pertinent information is witheld. This is literally an exercise in “what number am I thinking of?”

It’s the bad habit of seeking the answer from the back of the book fostered in schools. A pat answer applicable to any site is not forthcoming.

Worse yet, it is a search for a pat answer which surgically removes a target user and/or customer from consideration.

…A medical site for doctors and researchers? Probably a lot of articles.

…A site for a medical data entry company? Probably few.

Point is, this is not the fault of responders. You’re seeing what results are for zero context requests for answers. This perplexed reaction bodes ill when plugged in as the only fragment of data for rank speculation as to how many articles to launch with.

Let’s try explaining this in different terms: What if the question were “How many lines of code to launch with?” …Site, RIA, unspecified desktop app – doesn’t matter. Exactly what type of responses do you figure you’d get with a question like that?

“How many modules to launch a CMS based site with?” No target user profile. No competitive analysis. No corporate goals. No background. No development parameters or specs what-so-ever. What, exactly, were you hoping to get from an answer?

Based on what nothing there is to go on – I’d suggest going metric: Take the number you were thinking of; double it; then add thirty-two.

i understand your point (hidden agenda, perhaps?)

however, i am quite certain, just based on the general language of those two replies (which is all i was talking about, really), that had more illuminating context been present from the start, we would still have seen this general devolution of the thread to quaint seo homilies

there have been many meaningful and helpful attempts to answer debbie’s question despite the “zero context” that you are so concerned about

but the two replies that i referenced(*) were simply crap, and i guess i should have been less subtle about how sad it is that so many good threads have to die by seo

(*) ah, i see one of them has disappeared already :slight_smile:

Not perhaps, r937. :wink:

but the two replies that i referenced(*) were simply crap, and i guess i should have been less subtle about how sad it is that so many good threads have to die by seo

Your comments were people obvious to me…

Debbie

i understand your point (hidden agenda, perhaps?)

Let me clarify something. I am not trying to guess who the client is for pilferage. I am reasonably certain a backgrounder could be constructed which doesn’t reveal who it is, but gives a responder a reasonable chance at an actionable, useful, answer.

Zero context gets you just about what we have here.

Once again, I gave examples which explain why.

there have been many meaningful and helpful attempts to answer debbie’s question despite the “zero context” that you are so concerned about

The OP’s quip “That’s the $10,000 question” after all the help would tend to argue answers haven’t been as helpful – even though ten grand ain’t as much as it used to be.

die by seo

This could be off topic, but it isn’t. You get what you design for. Questions. Sub forums. Sites.

People do stuff. Then stuff happens. Then they wonder about it as if the two were completely disconnected random occurances.

Cease wondering. That is a big part of my agenda.

Mods, feel free to close this thread.

Nothing intelligent has been posted in quite some time…

Thanks,

Debbie

Depends on a keyword and how hard the competition is. For an easier keyword it would be fine to just have a handful of articles. If it’s harder, more content will help.