Here's a famous example: "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." It's attributed to IBM's Thomas Watson. IBM addresses it in their FAQ on page 25: http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/documents/pdf/faq.pdf

Meryl, it depends. Yes, Google may love the longer posts (more keywords, I suspect), but I'm sure not reading them. I guess it's one of those skim-and-read situations.

Jenn, this whole conversation started on that post in your forum, and you made a strong case (one that impressed me) about why long-form post data is a good bit of BS. It's as you say — blind following of unproven sources.

I have to thank you for bringing the idea up originally. It made me start digging, and what I found didn't surprise me much. The advice is being repeated on this particular issue, and there's no evidence anyone is presenting to back this idea up.

Another example they often throw around (and the one covered in the link from my last comment) is increased social media shares for long-form content. I think I debunked that reasonably well there so I won't again here. The stats just don't add up.

One poster even tried arguing that 3000+ words didn't equal much of a time commitment and that sites like Cracked.com do it all the time and get lots of social media shares.

When I checked their last 10 posts or so being promoted, not one of them actually came near that word count. Some were little more than a brief intro followed by a stream of pictures — in other words, a well-balanced mix of content types. But most people won't bother putting in the time to fact-check things like that. They see it, and they simply believe it.

I think the real problem is that people can't (or won't) think critically. They blindly follow a source and don't think for themselves.

Bloggers who focus on search engines are chasing their tails. They'll always be at risk while those with balanced content strategies don't get tossed about nearly as much in rankings. The longer-content trend started because Google wanted more focus on quality. But stuffing posts with more words doesn't equal quality.

Search engine spam hasn't stopped as a result. It just looks different. And the worst offenders are simply updating the same old BS posts that offered no value so they're longer (and often still not adding value). The trick as writers is making sure our clients understand things like that. If we jump on every trend with them, we're being irresponsible. And I don't know about anyone else, but I don't want to be responsible for a client losing visitors and money because we were short-sighted.

I know you know my thoughts on this long-form blog post obsession. It's short-sighted, driven by what are usually very misleading statistics (or the poor interpretations of them), and anyone who's been in the web publishing business for a significant amount of time knows your content shouldn't all fit a single mold.

That's short-sighted, is likely to hurt your business in the long run (such as when Google changes its algorithm again), and is generally only supported by the smarmy marketing types (SEO folks, marketers, and some writers — all of whom profit when these things change again and those same clients have to hire them again to update or write new content for the new "rules" rather than building a well-balanced content strategy from the start).

You can see an example of the kind of nonsense stats people are spreading in this post on my forum where Lori, a few other folks, and I were talking about this issue recently:

http://allindiewriters.com/forums/topic/blog-post-length-vs-number-of-shares/

As for ghostwriting work, who in their right mind would say it doesn't pay well?? It often pays much better than bylined work. And if you're not charging a premium for giving up your byline, you can and should. Why leave money on the table like that? Ghostwriting offers an added benefit to the client, not generally the writer.

I do have to disagree on the specialist / generalist thing. Specialists can always charge more because they bring more to the table.

Whether they do or not is another story. And I agree, having a specialty isn't a guarantee of success. You have to have the skills and knowledge to back it up, you have to charge what that specialized knowledge is worth, and you have to know how to find clients who actually need a writer in your specialty area.

That's where some go wrong — they try to sell higher-priced specialized services to clients who really only need a generalist (and that's all they want to pay for).

That doesn't mean generalists are never paid well. But in my experience most writers who do well while calling themselves "generalists" aren't true generalists — people who will write absolutely anything as long as they're paid for it.

Many simply don't choose to specialize in a niche or industry. Instead they specialize in a type of writing or a specific client type (like small local businesses). Or they might have a few specialties and call themselves generalists because they think being a specialist means you can only do one thing (which thankfully isn't true).

But overall, good message here about being careful about what advice you take. I wish we didn't have to keep reminding people about that, but over the last few years it's shocking what's passed as "good" advice in the freelance writing community, from newbies thinking they're qualified to teach classes on having a successful career to these types of folks who teach to the trends without understanding the fundamentals.

I'm kind of a generalist when it comes to industry – I specialize more in format (blogging, web content – mostly online stuff). Maybe I'd make more money if I was an expert on some complex industry, but I think I'd be bored outta my mind. Thanks to being a generalist, I've learned a bit about golfing, fishing, iPads, Maca root, log homes, nonprofit advocacy, the Arizona wine industry, forestry in Patagonia, and lots of other random topics. It's awesome because I'm a very curious person who loves learning new things and gets bored easily, so it keeps my job from becoming monotonous.

Most of my clients don't actually need an industry expert – just someone who's quick to understand & good at translating jargon for a general audience. If they do need an expert, I'm happy to refer (like I recently did with you, Lori – thanks!).

I like how you define what you do — niche with side niches. True!

Anyone who writes only long-form posts or only short-form posts is missing the point that too much of any one thing is boring. Readers crave a little variety, so why be afraid to mix it up a bit? Personally, if I see a long post, at best I'll skim it unless it's for some craft project I want to try.

I'm one of those writers who has a niche but also has a few side niches and still does some general writing. Again, too much of any one thing gets boring.