spacer
  • Log in
  • Sign up
  • Help
    • Help Resources
    • Support Forums
    • Request a Feature
    • Contact Us
  • Features
  • Pricing & Plans
  • Community
    • SEO Blog
    • YOUmoz User Blog
    • Top Users
    • Events
    • Recommended Companies
  • Resources
    • Learn SEO
    • SEO Tools
    • PRO Q&A Forum
    • Mozscape API
  • Blog
    • SEO Blog
    • YOUmoz User Blog
  • About
    • Our TAGFEE Mission
    • Meet the Mozzers
    • Contact Us
    • Join Our Team
    • Press & Awards
    • Events
Search SEOmoz

The YouMoz Blog

spacer

Which Content to Create: Expert Articles or Shallow Blog Posts?

July 10th, 2007 - Posted by A.N.Onym to Content & Blogging
19
0
This entry was written by one of our members and submitted to our YouMoz section. The author's views below are entirely his or her own and may not reflect the views of SEOmoz, Inc.

If you are an SEO, it doesn't matter if it's your first week or years into the practice, you probably have a blog or a site to publish articles to get more visitors and, hopefully, customers. What kind of content should you create?

Jakob Nielsen Speaks Out

In case you are new to SEO, or haven't bothered to touch on usability, Jakob Nielsen is widely recognized as a knowledgeable website usability person, though occasionally sneered at by practitioners for his condescending tone and occasionally peculiar advice.

Recently, Jakob posted an article (or was it a newsletter entry?) about creating content for your website. In it, he states that you should focus on investing more time in your writing and creating the very top, expert articles in your niche. He also advises against writing short, shallow blog posts, which contribute little to the Web and diminish the value of your brand.

The article is backed up by graphs, which summarize that more in-depth content draws more paying customers and that much more in-depth content generates more income (citing his report sales as an example).

What Jakob Got Wrong

In my very, very humble opinion, what Jakob got wrong is that he equated expert writing with articles and shallow writing with blogs.

While this may be true in general, there are many more instances of quality blog posts and plenty of shallow articles (article directories for instance.) It doesn't really matter what software you use to create a piece of content, be it a static page or a blog post, but the amount of value you put in it.

Speaking of value. Jacob seem to be considering that the more time you put in your post, the better it is. Generally, this is true. But if you are an expert in your field and have spent a lot of time on some specialized area of your practice, you'll be able to write plenty of solid posts in a much smaller amount of time.

Also, Jakob seems to think that luxury item sellers don't need great content. That makes little sense. The harder it is to sell the item, the more authority (brand, expertise) you need to sell the item. Quality content in any form, be they articles, blogs, newsletters, forum postings, comments, etc. will help you to increase your authority.

This point of view shouldn't contradict to Jakob's, it is just for various products and services different types of content will get different benefits. For example, on a nuts selling website, creating expert articles will still get relevant links and visibility, albeit little direct customers (for a nuts seller, a social media piece of content seems more worthwhile).

What You Need to Know

Inaccuracies aside, however, Jakob did get a couple of things right:

  • more quality content is worth more (that's easy, right?), so you need to focus on quality, not quantity
  • quality content takes time to create
  • you need to strive to be a leader in your niche (if the niche is too broad, make a smaller one)
  • by creating great content you make it harder for your rivals to compete with you
  • absolutely great content creates above-linear value (that's a subtle, but important difference)
  • you still need to format your content well for it to be well received

By creating great content, you:

  • move closer to the top of the recognized industry experts
  • add focused, on-topic (with right words) pages to your website
  • gain more links to your articles than to random posts
  • make it easier to put your ideas to practice through partners and customers
  • convert visitors to partners, employers, clients and customers

Of course, as mentioned earlier, you shouldn't limit yourself to rigidly producing articles. You can run a blog, communicate with other bloggers and industry people by writing about some noticeable events in the industry, share opinions and tips with others. This all will help build relationships with the people you are interested in, as well as assist in making your great content noticeable.

An Example

A good example of such practice would be SEOmoz itself. First of all, Rand not only publishes expert articles, but also:

  •  publishes random thoughts on events in the industry, as well as responses to other blog posts, thus building conversations
  • allows other mozzers to contribute
  • invites you to write for the YouMOZ section, too.
Take Web 2.0 Awards, for example. Though the awards are not related to the SEO industry and bear not as much expert information value, though created by apparent Web 2.0 experts, they have gained a lot of visibility, as well as plenty of links.

Rounding up

Though listening and following the advice of the experts seems easy and error-proof, you should find your own way. Creating expert articles or blog posts, or discussing important topics on your blog, it is your own way to build authority in your field. Sooner or later, you'll find the most suitable way to go, if you keep on learning, anyway.

p.s. Read a great discussion of Jacob's article at Cre8asite Forums.


Do you like this post?
   
19 Thumbs Up, 0 Thumbs Down
 
Get your social on
Tweet

31 Comments

+ Add Comment
+ Post Analytics

  • spacer spacer
    randfish | July 10th, 2007

    I really appreciate you writing about Nielsen's post. I wanted to follow up on it, but just couldn't stomach linking to the guy :) Now I've got a scapegoat!

    Only kidding - this is very good material and I'd say "bravo!" for being able to look past his biases and ridiculous contempt for all things blog related to find some value therein. 

    1
    0
    Reply
    Permalink
    • spacer
      A.N.Onym | July 10th, 2007

      Thanks, Rand. 

      Sometimes it helps to be objective and force a link or two (though I'd not link to another J guy, of course).

      Edited by A.N.Onym on July 10th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
      1
      0
      Reply
      Permalink
  • spacer spacer
    ciaran | July 11th, 2007

    Good post - I wouldn't normally do this, but to save me repeating myself, I'll just point anyone who's interested (Anyone? Anyone? Fry? Fry?), to the post, sorry - I mean article, I wrote about Mr Nielsen's comments.

    Essentially, Mr Nielsen is both wrong & right, but he's certainly a tiny bit pompous... 

    2
    1
    Reply
    Permalink
    • spacer
      A.N.Onym | July 11th, 2007

      What kind of air would you expect from a man, who's been in usability for a while, has a long success record and is preaching to the unenducated? Of course, he seems pretty arrogant, but that's from the background of solid expertise, not from personality.

      You may seem a little pompous to your less educated audience after jumping on him, too :)

      Not that I am saying that we are uneducated, but some of us certainly lack the decades of research and study background.

      Btw, it doesnt excuse Jacob from putting great blog posts and shallow blog posts in one pile, though.

      Edited by A.N.Onym on July 11th, 2007 at 1:03 am
      1
      0
      Reply
      Permalink
      • spacer
        ciaran | July 11th, 2007

        If I do seem pompous, then I would hope that those around me would give me a sound slapping - but one of the things I always try to do, is explain things in a clear, simple manner, without recourse to alienating jargon & terminology.

        I think I do a reasonably good job on it as well - the biggest (and most frequent [or should that be only]) compliment I get, is when people say that they now understand the basics of seo/social media after I've spoken to them. (and it normally only costs me a fiver to get that feedback!)

        ;) 

        I admire Nielsen's work on usability a great deal, but do feel that there is some basis to the suggestion that he is living off of his reputation to a certain extent; and his tone/manner doesn't help to stop this perception. 

        There's a great comment on the Guardian blog about this:

        I have several problems with Neilsen's status as 'guru'. These are mainly due to the fact that he does not give the impression that he knows what he is talking about...One: His material reads like a multi-level marketing scam. He refers only to previous material written by him. There is no supporting material from anyone else...Two: He attempts to bamboozle his readers with voodoo logic...Three: He cites statistics that are highly questionable and not supported in any way...Four: He insults his readers intelligence by implying that anyone who thinks he is wrong just doesn't get it

        Do you think that guy is a Nielsen fan?!

        ;) 

        1
        0
        Reply
        Permalink
        • spacer
          A.N.Onym | July 11th, 2007

          ciaran, I apologize if my comment sounded accusing, but my intent was to point out that any expert will publish anything on his site with an air of confidence. Otherwise, how that person is supposed to be an expert?

          Nielsen probably has more authority than some of us, so this air of confidence is more noticeable. Perhaps he allows some remarks that some wouldn't allow, but it isn't a sign he shouldn't be confident in his studies.

           

          As for the Nielsen fan comment, let's think about it for a second. You have conducted your own research and present results in the article. Is there any other source to link to, if the research topic is relatively new? Don't think so.

          Though statistics may be considered evil, he does use more trusted sources, such as Hitwise, Forrester and so on (I think).

          And lastly. As he admitted in this article, he writes the content to sell his knowledge (reports). That's why it sounds like an ad and the links are mostly to his own stuff - especially to his reports (I don't particularly adore this either).

          It doesn't make him any greater for not embracing the blogosphere like UIE have done, though.

          Maybe the only reason we dont like his writings is because we are not experts of the same level. If we were, we'd just compare his ideas to ours and move on. Instead, we argue about someone being confident in his findings and linking patterns.

          2
          0
          Reply
          Permalink
          • spacer
            ciaran | July 11th, 2007

            Those are all fair points (and get a thumb from me) - I just always get a feeling of emperor's new clothes with Nielsen's more recent pronouncements. Which could well be my loss.

             

            No worries on the accusing tone thing - it wasn't really - tone is very hard to judge online - maybe I should give Jakob a bit more slack!

             

            ;)

            Edited by ciaran on July 11th, 2007 at 3:42 am
            1
            0
            Reply
            Permalink
          • spacer
            ciaran | July 11th, 2007

            Also, I just thought that I would post the full comment from the Nielsen 'fan' as I don't think my excerpts do his logic justice (i.e. its not that he uses stats from Hitwise etc.., it's the fact that he just doesn't say where he gets his stats from etc..). I don't necessarily agree with all his comments, but they're pretty thorough.

            In the interests of fairness to Neilsen, I have read the article before commenting. Not something I always do, as I post for the fun of it more than anything else. I have several problems with Neilsen's status as 'guru'. These are mainly due to the fact that he does not give the impression that he knows what he is talking about.

            One: His material reads like a multi-level marketing scam. He refers only to previous material written by him. There is no supporting material from anyone else. Its a sort of self-referential circle. Like saying I'm a genius - here's an article I wrote proving it. Some sort of peer review process showing some support for his ideas would have added weight to his views. OK, sometimes like Churchill, you might be the lone voice crying out in the wilderness. Sometimes it means you are a deluded nutter. I get the sense that Churchill is not the model in this case.

            Two: He attempts to bamboozle his readers with voodoo logic. In the paragraph headed Demonstrate Leadership - he expands on what he's discussing with a - wait for it - Histogram of expertise scores for 1,000 authors.' This is a totally meaningless graphic. It does not lead anywhere or expand on his point in anyway. It is merely decorative.

            Three: He cites statistics that are highly questionable and not supported in any way. For example, this gem - 'Users spend 51 seconds reading the average newsletter.' He's kidding right? Exactly 51 seconds? Why not 52 seconds or 50 seconds? Another gem: 'if you work within the prevailing Web paradigm you're letting the search engines take 98% of your content's value.' Exactly where did this precise figure of 98% pop out from? I would certainly like to know.

            Four: He insults his readers intelligence by implying that anyone who thinks he is wrong just doesn't get it ; 'This has been a very long article, stuffed with charts and statistical concepts -- like standard deviations and utility functions -- that I know most readers find difficult.' I used to have am employee with a problem like that. We had to fire him in the end because we came to the conclusion that his BS covered the fact that he did not really have a clue.

             

            2
            0
            Reply
            Permalink
            • spacer
              A.N.Onym | July 11th, 2007

              ciaran, if you have some experience in any field, you have some knowledge of the industry that others don't have. Which is why, you can make quite precise guesstimates pretty easily.

              Jacob Nielsen can do that. Rand, as any other SEO Master, does that too.

              Here's a quote from the recent paid links post:

              "To my mind, it's a game of cat and mouse that will play out for at least the next 5 years, if not far longer. " (Rand)

              If I cared about this more, I'd find more more or less precise guesses from Rands from anything from conversion rates to how much the Web is ridden with spam and paid links.

              Not to mention such a mind-shattering idea, that

              "The most you can hope for is to leverage your site's existing link weight and trust and point your internal links to those pages. When this fails to rank you, it's only natural to turn to paid links - which everyone else and their dog is using."

              Normally, you'd blast the heck out of Jacob for such a generlizing thought, because:

               

              • you still can rank for money phrases, but not necessarily the product pages will rank (think link bait)
              • if you
gipoco.com is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its contents. This is a safe-cache copy of the original web site.