I was recently reading a post on another book blog, about the length of blogs and how long blogs are superior to short blogs. Far superior. And we’re talking about 2,500 words a post. The article was very well written and the argument seemed sound. Until…
Until I took a look at my own word counts. My word counts, even with the book info, synopsis, and author bios fell far short of that mark. And I thought I got a bit wordy at times with my chatty style. But HIME had a lot more to say than I ever could, she usually does, though.
“BLOGGING IS ONLY FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD TO THE CONVERSATION…
Where’s the cleverly elaborated opinion? Where’s the backing to the reason of why I should read this book? Where’s the controversial point of view that’s going to draw me in into reading? Or simply, why aren’t you enticing discussion to build your community?
GOOGLE SAID SO.
And in Jon Morrow’s words: Giving Google what it wants is smart.
Most articles out there will go on to explain that longer articles are favorable because SEO (Search Engine Optimization, to make it short, the algorithm that decides how high your blog will appear in a search result without paying to be bumped higher) ranks articles with more content higher on the search engine. Think of it, which of these two options would google rather hook you up with: The one that engages you for two minutes, or the one that engages you for twenty?”
Now, I really enjoy her rants and most of her stuff. But I just can’t imagine me coming up with 2,000 or more words about each book or even most of the books I read for my Monday through Friday postings. Apart from the book info, synopsis, and author’s bio, I usually have about 400 to 700 words for my disclaimer and review. I make an effort not to retell the story since I use the synopsis. I tell parts of the story from my own point of view to portray my opinion using my own humor or snarkiness. I’m not an English Lit major, so I don’t go into the structure of the book in great detail or really technical terms. I don’t feel I’m qualified. My reviews are my personal opinion of the books I’m reading. If I had an English Lit degree, it would be a more professional review along with my personal opinion. But that’s not what I provide. And as far as I can tell, most book reviewers that I follow or rub elbows with out here in the community are doing pretty much the same thing. Some are teachers or librarians with more professional points of view, but for the most part, I have found personal likes and dislikes rule the roost. Even when I’m in love with a book, I find I can only go on so long without just telling the whole story and making the book a moot point.
I try very hard with my reviews to hint about things without giving away out and out spoilers. Though I find sometimes I’ve actually given things away without realizing it when I go back and read the review later on. The longer I go on in a post, the more likely I am to do that. So how is a reviewer to do her job of not revealing important bits and pieces but come up with a word count of 2,500?
All of you book bloggers out there, please share your thoughts and insights with me. Pro or Con. I’m curious to see how y’all feel about this subject. I need to make sure you gals in COYER see this. I’m sure you will all have an opinion.
Judi at Blue Cat Review
Point of Reference: 640-word count