How long should a post be?

[TheNash]

If your post is 1000 words, readers will be bored. If your posts are 50 words, why not use Twitter?

So, what is the golden number when it comes down to post size ?

[Chrisg]

I heard that around 500 words is good - SE's like this amount as well. remember keyword density as well.

[thinkblogpublish]

I disagree with this:

If your post is 1000 words, readers will be bored.

There are way too many variables that play into a blog's readership when making generalized statements like this. I'm not sure that many bloggers could write a really high quality technical 'how to' post in under 1,000 words. Or a detailed review perhaps?

Of course, a blog post which contains 1,000 words doesn't mean it's of a high quality either. However, some bloggers only post twice a month, but their posts contain 1,000 words or more because that's what their readers expect.

Know your readers and find out what they like.

[Piratejon]

I think that it comes down to an inverse relation. Longer posts take more time, so you write less, shorter content takes less time so you write more.

What size posts can you publish that you are proud off? How many words NEED to be written?

Again, it comes down to being able to pitch between writing good content and updating on a regular basis. With the recent update of PiratePasta, I've chosen to go for a mix of short articles (I have to keep readers interested) and longer posts (to put some quantity out there).

But you may also consider that 400 words of quality is better than 1000 wrds of un-qality.

[Mac100x]

Well you don't want a post to be too long unless you're writing after a long time. Generally on my blog I keep my posts from around 350 words to 650 words maximum and I believe that this is good enough for a blog post.

[ChickenFreak]

I think that there are a huge number of It Depends factors. But that said, I was surprised to find that my posts very often come in at about 350 words, and they tend to feel "right" at that length.

I'm not sure if this is about reading time or if, as I suspect, it's simply about the fact that 350 words on my blog is generally between one and two screenfuls. (I realize that this varies depending on screen and font size, but I think that 350 words will be more than one screen for most blogs on most screens, especially if there are any graphics. On the other hand, if the content is presented to fill the full width of the screen, as it is in this forum, it will "look" shorter. This long ramble that I'm writing right here is going to end up at around 500 words, but it's less than a screenful on my screen, and probably on yours too.)

At 350 words, you read the first screenful with the comforting navigation tools at the top of the post, and the second screenful with the comforting comment structures at the bottom. You're not lost in "how long _is_ this thing?!" no man's land, and you aren't faced with so much text that you risk getting lost and having to find your place again.

When a post is long enough that you have a screen of text without these start or end landmarks, I think that you often have to provide the reader with some substitute landmarks - section titles, or images that go along with what you're saying, or something of the sort.

I don't think that it's a good idea to let the post length go too far in driving the writing. If the post is too short, it shouldn't be puffed up with more words purely for length - it should probably just be left short. Short, pithy posts are fine, and if you think that the reader will feel cheated, just write another post.

And if a post is too long, you can try to cut any fat - in fact, you should always cut fat, even if it makes a perfect-length post "too short". But don't simplify or dumb down the post. Instead, if there really is that much to say, it would be better to turn the post into a series.

Also, I think that storytelling, whether it's fiction or nonfiction, can support longer posts. It's not as information-dense, so the reader is more likely to merrily read along, rather than pausing to absorb. And if there are short fiction-style paragraphs, and especially if there's dialog, that gives you a little bit of that "landmark" in the writing itself.

But I would probably say that a post over 500 words should at least get a glance to see if it has fat to cut, an opportunity for splitting it into more than one post, or a logical place to insert landmarks.

[BarryJarvis]

i think as long as the content of the article/post is relevant then word count doesn't matter too much.
Obviously, don't go writing 1000 words when 500 will cover it just as well.

Cut out the life stories, get a little opening paragraph that people can relate to and then get in to the content.
If you find that you tend to get carried away and stray off topic then use lists instead. Or use headers, then a sentence or two after each header.

in my opinion people don't mind reading long posts as long as they are getting value from it - if you stray off topic half way through, you've lost them.
Longer articles are more diffucult to write purely for that reason, you have to keep the readers attention for a longer timeframe.

[RJLC]

I like to mix it up. Post are between 300 - 1000 words..

[ChasingJason]

If find that if I keep getting off topic, the digressions are usually worthy of a serparate entry themselves. If it is not time sensitive it might be best to save those for a rainy day.

[Melody]

Interesting answers. My posts have ranged anywhere from 350 words to 2200 depending on the topic.
One of my longest blog entries, at about 2200 words, was a success in my opinion:

StarbucksMelody.com Blog Archive Commentary: Critical discussion of Mystarbucksidea.com

And this one was 373 words:
StarbucksMelody.com Blog Archive Vanilla Cupcakes return to Starbucks

I don't think there is any fixed perfect answer to the question 'how many words'? If you have something that you can really hold your readers' attention for over 1500 words, go for it. Though as I look, my average blog entry is between about 500 and 1000 words tops.