Single Long Article Or Several Linked Pages, Which loses fewer visitors/ Options

[visualcontent]

During a recent discussion the question was posed from the visitor's point of view which is better when you have a long article, a single long page page or the article broken up across several pages?

The discussion went something like this...In the 90’s web pages use to scroll and scroll; but it was soon learned that long articles scared people and that time is money and no one has time to read a long article. Today articles get broken up to span several pages not only does this make each section more digestible, but also it increases the amount of space to place ads. However, there has been a long standing theory that each time you make a visitor click, you will lose 50% of your visitors. So which loses fewer visitors? The long article on a single page or one that spans several pages.

Looking forward to your feedback on this one.

Thanks

Chris
www.visualcontentsolutions.typepad.com

[EGOL]

In my opinion there is no generalized answer to this question. Anyone who presents an answer to this question that is not based upon analytics is blowing smoke - and the answer that they give will not apply to your different situation. Too many factors are at play and these include... how the pages are linked, where those links are placed, how interesting the writing is, who your traffic is, how badly your traffic wants or needs your content, format of the writing.

If you want the answer to this question you should take your best shot at the format then run analytics. When you have some information on a lot of visitors then change the format and run again. Repeat using a few different formats and you will learn something, plus you will have an answer that is based upon data and not on hot air.

If you don't use analytics you are simply guessing at the answer. Most of my guesses are wrong.

Also, other variables are at play... I have lots of long articles on my site and some of them are multipage and some are the single long page. In addition to user engagement, the single vs long page formats can have a dramatic difference in search engine ranking, traffic inflow - and Income! Again, analytics is the only way to measure these things. Combine user engagement with income and rankings and you have a multivariate puzzle that would challenge a statistician - yet it is easy to tell when something bombs or performs strongly.

I have articles on my site that I have tested with long pages, short pages, intermediate pages, different linkage formats - over millions of pageviews and I am always amazed at the massive differences that are observed and that I am unable to have guessed them in advance. Huge differences in traffic, engagement and income between formats.

I have done very little content generation on my site for the past several months. Instead I've spent almost all available time testing, tweaking, rebuilding. The goal is to find the best intersection of user engagement, SEO and income. The result is a 50% increase in income per visitor. But, although I think that I have learned a lot I can almost always improve upon my first guess at performance if I watch what happens and then modify accordingly. All of this is done with clicktracks, crazyegg, weblogexpert and income data.

One final factor that is very important... after you have done all of the above you take a look at your site and ask if you have damaged or enhanced the linkability of the article. If you double your income but stink up your site you probably have lost in the long run.

This post has been edited by EGOL: Apr 15 2007, 10:33 PM

[bwelford]

Welcome to the Forums, visualcontent.

You may want to check out this recent thread where this topic was thoroughly ventilated.

[visualcontent]

Thank you.

[mandar-seo]

The intermediate articles perform well according to me. Besides backing statement with analytics there is a logic as well. The intermediate length article will rank good in search engines (given all other things are in place) and visitor will have to scroll too deep or click too frequently.

[visualcontent]

Does anyone think it is a generation thing? I have a friend (who is considerably older) who threw out this theory. He likes content and substance. He feels his generation is use to seeing things, reading it thoroughly and absorbing it and therefore a bounty or quality information is good. However, the younger generation is about multiple things at once - lots of small chunks from different areas. Anyone have any information to support or disprove that this may be age dependant?

-Chris

[cre8pc]

Effects of Surrounding Information and Line Length on Text Comprehension from the Web

We examined two features of Web page design that are easily modified by developers, namely line length and the amount of surrounding information, or whitespace. Undergraduate university student participants read text and answered comprehension questions on the Web. Comprehension was affected by whitespace; participants had better comprehension for information surrounded by whitespace than for information surrounded by meaningless information. Participants were not affected by line length. These findings demonstrate that reading from the Web is not the same as reading print and have implications for instructional Web design.

Exploring cross cultural variation in looking behavior

I could have sworn I had something more specific to show you...This site would likely have it and gobs of other goodies as well

[Ruud]

During a recent discussion the question was posed from the visitor's point of view which is better when you have a long article, a single long page page or the article broken up across several pages?

My question here would be: better for what and whom?

I have hardly ever seen a two-part page where the first page receives as many clicks as the second. Still, it might be better for the reader.

I've also seen one-page articles that convert really well ad-wise but are a drag on the human reader.