<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Does Long Copy Convert Better Than Short Copy?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.vanseodesign.com/conversions/long-vs-short-copy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.vanseodesign.com/conversions/long-vs-short-copy/</link>
	<description>Helping you build search engine friendly websites</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:07:45 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Steven Bradley</title>
		<link>http://www.vanseodesign.com/conversions/long-vs-short-copy/comment-page-1/#comment-139</link>
		<dc:creator>Steven Bradley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 2006 04:29:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.vanseodesign.com/blog/uncategorized/does-long-copy-convert-better-than-short-copy/#comment-139</guid>
		<description>It was interesting to me too since I would have thought the shorter copy would have converted better prior to the article. I can see the reasoning though why the long copy works. I don&#039;t know if it means you should arbitrarily make your copy longer. I still think well written short copy will outperform poorly written long copy, but I will consider the article whenever I&#039;m writing copy.

I think Google leans toward informational sites in general. That&#039;s what they prefer to return. Longer copy should mean more information and thus might see a benefit in Google just for being seemingly more informational. The longer copy probably also increases the number of long tail phrases a page can become associated with.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It was interesting to me too since I would have thought the shorter copy would have converted better prior to the article. I can see the reasoning though why the long copy works. I don&#8217;t know if it means you should arbitrarily make your copy longer. I still think well written short copy will outperform poorly written long copy, but I will consider the article whenever I&#8217;m writing copy.</p>
<p>I think Google leans toward informational sites in general. That&#8217;s what they prefer to return. Longer copy should mean more information and thus might see a benefit in Google just for being seemingly more informational. The longer copy probably also increases the number of long tail phrases a page can become associated with.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Johnson</title>
		<link>http://www.vanseodesign.com/conversions/long-vs-short-copy/comment-page-1/#comment-138</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Johnson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Sep 2006 18:28:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.vanseodesign.com/blog/uncategorized/does-long-copy-convert-better-than-short-copy/#comment-138</guid>
		<description>Interesting steve, I hadn&#039;t read that article before. I&#039;m tempted to set up a test myself to have a look at this.

If google were to prefer long copies over short ones i wonder what the reasoning behind that would be. I know it would mean there is more information, but does it mean that information is better?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting steve, I hadn&#8217;t read that article before. I&#8217;m tempted to set up a test myself to have a look at this.</p>
<p>If google were to prefer long copies over short ones i wonder what the reasoning behind that would be. I know it would mean there is more information, but does it mean that information is better?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
